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/ So, What the Heck is a “Sanctuary” Anyway? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/so-what-the-heck-is-a-sanctuary-anyway/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3c85748c-933d-a684-331d-b242b1e7bcae Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:02:54 +0000 <p>A growing number of states and cities are claiming that they’re now a “sanctuary” on one issue or another. But since these are politicians making the claims, are they telling the truth? Learn what qualifies as a sanctuary and you’ll easily spot the liars.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/so-what-the-heck-is-a-sanctuary-anyway/">So, What the Heck is a “Sanctuary” Anyway?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>A growing number of states and cities are claiming that they’re now a “sanctuary” on one issue or another. But since these are politicians making the claims, are they telling the truth? Learn what qualifies as a sanctuary and you’ll easily spot the liars.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: August 4, 2021 <span id="more-37853"></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 loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/0oXA3r0JwLQ?start=45" title="YouTube video player" 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://news.yahoo.com/the-postal-service-is-running-a-running-a-covert-operations-program-that-monitors-americans-social-media-posts-160022919.html?guccounter=1" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Postal Service is running a &#8216;covert operations program&#8217; that monitors Americans&#8217; social media posts</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/u-s-post-office-operating-as-part-of-surveillance-state/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">U.S. Post Office Operating as Part of Surveillance State</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/why-government-use-social-media-monitoring" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Why Government Use of Social Media Monitoring Software Is a Direct Threat to Our Liberty and Privacy</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privacy/were-demanding-government-come-clean-surveillance-social" rel="noopener" target="_blank">We’re Demanding the Government Come Clean on Surveillance of Social Media</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/when-our-rights-are-invaded-the-founders-on-precedent-and-resistance/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">When Our Rights are Invaded: The Founders on Precedent and Resistance</a></p> <p><a href="https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0518/Social-Media-Monitoring.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">EPIC Social Media Monitoring Background (pdf)</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/20/national-park-service-joining-the-national-surveillance-state/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">National Park Service Joining the National Surveillance State</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-080221:b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1268988195115110404" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/is-every-federal-agency-a-spy-6108315fd13e0e9d31576af9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/5ada1a7f-ffc3-4c89-8e9d-c3c9f77e0fff" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/77X1m0u_us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vrx4VjKhjATl/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/5e3cf62d-5a64-4695-91a8-338976a1756e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CSFMlJaFJlg/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/4246c9ec-fef2-4d40-8027-4e10884494ba" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1422233360668053505" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</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></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/so-what-the-heck-is-a-sanctuary-anyway/">So, What the Heck is a “Sanctuary” Anyway?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Immigration Path to Liberty Strategy 2nd Amendment Sanctuary anti-commandeering doctrine Declaration of Independence Federalism James Madison Sanctuary Cities Sanctuary State sovereignty Tench Coxe Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 35:41 A growing number of states and cities are claiming that they’re now a “sanctuary” on one issue or another. But since these are politicians making the claims, are they telling the truth? Learn what qualifies as a sanctuary and you’ll easily spot the liars. A growing number of states and cities are claiming that they’re now a “sanctuary” on one issue or another. But since these are politicians making the claims, are they telling the truth? Learn what qualifies as a sanctuary and you’ll easily spot the liars.<br /> Republicans Join Democrats in Spending Boondoggle https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/republicans-join-democrats-in-spending-boondoggle/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ec7ccda9-cd3a-e1bb-f73d-49f70d0e2390 Wed, 04 Aug 2021 03:23:18 +0000 <p>Republicans have been complaining about Democrats spending too much money. But the $1 trillion infrastructure bill currently under debate (all 2,702 words of it) is being touted as "bipartisan." That means Republicans have signed off on this.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/republicans-join-democrats-in-spending-boondoggle/">Republicans Join Democrats in Spending Boondoggle</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Republicans have been complaining about Democrats spending too much money. But the $1 trillion infrastructure bill currently under debate (all 2,702 words of it) is being touted as &#8220;bipartisan.&#8221; That means Republicans have signed off on this.</p> <p>This tells me Republicans aren&#8217;t really all that worried about spending.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">2702 pages. It sure takes a lot of words to &quot;authorize&quot; $1 trillion in unconstitutional pork barrel spending. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/infrastructure?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#infrastructure</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/bipartisan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#bipartisan</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/politics?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#politics</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/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#economy</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://t.co/bK4RBLYlVF">pic.twitter.com/bK4RBLYlVF</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1422316119650562074?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 2, 2021</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/2021/01/06/conservative-hypocrisy-on-foreign-aid/">Conservative Hypocrisy on Foreign Aid</a></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">The Trump Administration Has Added More Than $7 Trillion to National Debt</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/principle-over-party-the-founders-warned-us-about-factions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Principle Over Party: The Founder Warned Us About Factions</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/today-in-history-james-madison-vetoes-infrastructure-spending-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Today in History: James Madison Vetoes Infrastructure Spending Bill</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/republicans-join-democrats-in-spending-boondoggle/">Republicans Join Democrats in Spending Boondoggle</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Republocrats Debt government spending Infrastructure Republicans Mike Maharrey Now in Effect: Louisiana Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-louisiana-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:aa08e3ce-f312-3421-0e87-6bdad100e098 Tue, 03 Aug 2021 16:48:23 +0000 <p>Under the new law, possession of up to 14 grams of marijuana is punishable by a fine of up to $100 with no threat of jail time.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-louisiana-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-despite-federal-prohibition/">Now in Effect: Louisiana Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BATON ROUGE</strong>, La. (Aug 3, 2021) – On Sunday, a Louisiana law decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana went into effect despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition.<span id="more-37829"></span></p> <p>Rep. Cedric Glover (D) introduced House Bill 652 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/bill/HB652/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB652</a>) on April 4. Under the new law, possession of up to 14 grams of marijuana is punishable by a fine of up to $100 with no threat of jail time.</p> <p>The House <a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/rollcall/HB652/id/1076002" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed HB652 by a 68-25 vote</a>. The Senate approved the measure by <a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/rollcall/HB652/id/1093023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 20-17 vote</a>. With Gov. John Bell Edward&#8217;s signature, the law went into effect on Aug. 1.</p> <p>In his signing statement, Bell downplayed the law, saying “contrary to the narrative developed in the press and elsewhere, [HB652] does not decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.” But as <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/louisiana-governor-signs-marijuana-decriminalization-bill-into-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Marijuana Moment noted</a>, “replacing the threat of incarceration with a modest fine does fit the definition of decriminalization used by reform advocates.”</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL PROHIBITION</strong></p> <p>While marijuana has become more widely accepted across the U.S., it remains illegal under federal law. As we’ve seen with immigration sanctuary cities, when state and local enforcement ends, the federal government has an extremely difficult time enforcing their acts.</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>Louisiana’s decriminalization of cannabis, along with its medical marijuana program, removes a layer of laws prohibiting and punishing the possession and use of marijuana.</p> <p>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>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 i</a>n 2019. New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election. Earlier this year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action.</p> <p>With 36 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 18 legalizing for adult recreational use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</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-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-louisiana-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-despite-federal-prohibition/">Now in Effect: Louisiana Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis Decriminalization HB652 Louisiana Marijuana Mike Maharrey Biden Gives “Five Eyes” Surveillance Consortium Access to Everyone’s Social Media https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/biden-gives-five-eyes-surveillance-consortium-access-to-everyones-social-media/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:cf2fe883-c89e-8ba3-36c5-14d1f128a0d9 Tue, 03 Aug 2021 11:48:21 +0000 <p>For years, Americans have largely ignored corporate social media surveillance. But that all of that is about to change, thanks to President Biden</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/biden-gives-five-eyes-surveillance-consortium-access-to-everyones-social-media/">Biden Gives “Five Eyes” Surveillance Consortium Access to Everyone’s Social Media</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>For years, Americans have largely ignored corporate social media surveillance. But that all of that is about to change, thanks to President Biden.<span id="more-37810"></span></p> <p>No one has taken the White House&#8217;s plan to turn Big Tech into a quasi-Five Eyes censorship program seriously despite repeated warnings from <a href="https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/07/17/the-us-government-threatens-tech-companies-to-push-censorship-agendas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">journalists</a> and <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/07/21/idiocracy-america-corporate-control-over-public-functions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news websites</a>.</p> <p>As journalist Caitlin Johnstone <a href="https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/07/17/the-us-government-threatens-tech-companies-to-push-censorship-agendas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a>, the White House is pushing for Facebook and Microsoft to censor any social media stories the feds don&#8217;t like.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;After Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted on Thursday that the administration has given Facebook a list of accounts to ban for spreading misinformation about the Covid vaccine, she has now doubled down saying that people who circulate such materials online should be banned from not just one but all social media platforms.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>The feds want Big Tech to ban stories and people they do not approve of from social media.</p> <p>&#8220;You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others for providing misinformation out there,” Psaki told the press on Friday.</p> <p>Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-facebook-tech-giants-target-manifestos-militias-database-2021-07-26/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">revealed</a> some of America&#8217;s biggest tech companies will let <a href="https://hide.me/en/blog/five-eyes-surveillance-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;Five Eyes&#8221;</a> and the U.N. decide whose stories the <a href="https://gifct.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism&#8221;</a> should censor.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism&#8217;s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>Big Tech&#8217;s GIFCT is essentially a Five Eyes censorship program, masquerading as a Big Tech social media forum to stop terrorism and extremism.</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos &#8212; often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence &#8212; and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>Twitter and YouTube are also helping help Five Eyes spy on the world&#8217;s social media.</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;The firms, which include Twitter and YouTube, share &#8220;hashes,&#8221; unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>Other companies that have access to the GIFCT database are Reddit, Snapchat, Instagram, Verizon Media, LinkedIn, Dropbox, Mailchimp and Airbnb.</p> <p>Three years ago the mass media <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/03/five-eyes-governments-call-on-tech-giants-to-build-encryption-backdoors-or-else/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> us about Five Eyes demanding that tech companies give them backdoors to users&#8217; encrypted data, and now they finally got their wish.</p> <p>The dangers of Big Tech giving URLs, PDFs and personal information to a global intelligence agency will allow governments to secretly track and ID people and organizations they deem a threat.</p> <p><i>Radio New Zealand</i> <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/428250/threats-to-freedom-warned-if-social-media-unlocked-to-five-eyes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> if one government has access to this information, then other governments will request it as part of doing business with another country.</p> <p>New Zealand&#8217;s Privacy Commissioner also warned that there is nothing stopping governments&#8217; from abusing their access to people&#8217;s social media posts. And that is the real danger of letting Big Tech, Five Eyes and the U.N. decide who is a terrorist or extremist.</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;Even then you don&#8217;t solve the technical challenge of allowing access for legitimate purposes while maintaining a secure network, and people in the tech industry tell me this is impossible&#8221; Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said.</em></p></blockquote> <p>The GIFCT claims to &#8220;bring together the technology industry, government, civil society, and academia to foster collaboration and information-sharing to counter terrorist and violent extremist activity online.&#8221; But what it does not tell you is how they decide to brand someone a terrorist or extremist.</p> <p>GIFCT <a href="https://gifct.org/explainers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">admits</a> that Big Tech has been secretly compiling a database of &#8220;hashes&#8221; or unique digital fingerprints of suspected terrorist/extremist social media posts since 2016.</p> <p>Big Tech also uses their in-house <a href="https://gifct.org/explainers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;Content Incident Protocol&#8221; </a>(CIP) to justify sharing hashes of an extremist&#8217;s video, and other related content with Big Tech companies, Five Eyes and the U.N.</p> <p>If the GIFCT&#8217;s secret social media database and CIP sound familiar, that&#8217;s because they are.</p> <p>The <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-postal-service-social-media.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">United States Postal Service</a> and <a href="https://voiceofoc.org/2021/03/oc-police-fusion-center-that-monitors-social-media-is-highlighted-at-national-hearing-over-role-in-extremist-arrests/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fusion centers</a> across the country have been secretly collecting and spying on Americans&#8217; social media for years.</p> <p>Earlier this week, PayPal <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/paypal-research-blocking-transactions-that-fund-hate-groups-extremists-2021-07-26/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> that they are working with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities.</p> <p>PayPal is basically setting up its own version of GIFCT to justify monitoring people&#8217;s transactions under the terrorist/extremist umbrella. As the article mentioned, PayPal and the ADL will &#8220;uncover and disrupt the financial flows of anti-government and white supremacist organizations&#8221; on their own.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;The information collected through the initiatives will be shared with other firms in the financial industry, law enforcement and policymakers, PayPal said.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>It is only a matter of time before GIFCT censorship will be used to monitor and stop protests that corporations and the White House disapprove of.</p> <p>As Caitlin Johnstone so eloquently <a href="https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/07/18/youre-not-supposed-to-trust-the-government-notes-from-the-edge-of-the-narrative-matrix/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">put it</a>:</p> <ul> <li>They said we need internet censorship because of Russia.</li> <li>They said we need internet censorship because of COVID.</li> <li>They said we need internet censorship because of election security.</li> <li>They said we need internet censorship because of the Capitol riot.</li> <li>They said we need internet censorship because of domestic extremism.</li> <li>Pretty sure they just want internet censorship.</li> </ul> <p>Using the GIFCT to allow corporations and Five Eyes to ban and censor whoever they want, put&#8217;s everyone&#8217;s freedom at risk.</p> <p><em>The article was <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/07/biden-gives-five-eyes-what-it-always.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originally published at MassPrivateI.</a></em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/biden-gives-five-eyes-surveillance-consortium-access-to-everyones-social-media/">Biden Gives “Five Eyes” Surveillance Consortium Access to Everyone’s Social Media</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Surveillance internet Privacy social media surveillance jprivate A Dark Side of Inflation https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/03/a-dark-side-of-inflation/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:93adcb2c-a5f2-55d1-c1bf-fee8a0200b11 Tue, 03 Aug 2021 11:21:47 +0000 <p>The solution is to take money completely out of the hands of the government. No more Fed, no more inflation.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/03/a-dark-side-of-inflation/">A Dark Side of Inflation</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>When the Federal Reserve inflates the money supply, the resulting debasement of people’s money is reflected in the higher prices that people are paying for things they need or want. Already, everyone is seeing, for example, significantly higher prices for gasoline at the pump. The price jump is high enough to cause people to realize that all that “free” stimulus money wasn’t as free as the government said it was.</p> <p>There is another dark consequence of an inflationary expansion of the money supply. The inflationary policy distorts market signals, which causes both consumers and businesses to engage in actions in which they would not ordinarily engage.</p> <p>For example, consider what can happen when the Fed artificially lowers interest rates as part of its inflationary policy. Consumers are encouraged to buy homes, which they ordinarily could not afford to do.</p> <p>At the same time, sensing the increased demand for housing, construction companies begin expanding operations. They add staff and facilities, purchase equipment, buy land, and borrow money to build additional housing.</p> <p>But the problem is that it’s a distorted market signal, one that is causing people to move In a direction in which they should not be moving. From the looks of things, consumers and suppliers are moving in a rational direction but the fact is that there isn’t sufficient wealth to sustain this new activity. People are being induced to act as a result of the Fed’s artificially low interest rates.</p> <p>At some point this artificial inflation-induced bubble bursts, which causes the malinvestment to be exposed. Homeowners default on loans. Home builders go bankrupt. Banks lose money on their loans and on foreclosures. The recession (or depression) has arrived.</p> <p>Of course, government officials blame the problems on the “banksters” or on the construction firms or on the consumers themselves. In actuality, the fault lies with the inflationary policy of the central bank.</p> <p>The price system is an intricate message-delivering system that is inherent to a free market. Prices come into existence through the subjective valuations of the participants in the market. Based on prices, people can make rational judgements on what actions to take.</p> <p>But once the government embarks on an inflationary policy, the price system is distorted. It becomes a bad messaging system that causes people to operate in destructive ways, even though they might not realize it at the time.</p> <p>The solution is not to place a ban on the Fed’s inflationary policies. The solution is to take money completely out of the hands of the government. No more Fed, no more inflation. A total free-market monetary system, one in which people rely on the market to determine the best media of exchange. The Nobel Prize-winning libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek called this idea “the denationalization of money.”</p> <p>The free market produces the best of everything, and the government produces the worst of everything. A free market monetary system would produce the finest, soundest money. By separating money and the state, people would no longer have their money debased through inflation and they would also have the price system restored to its proper messaging role in a free market.</p> <p><em>This article was originally published at the <a href="https://fff.org/">Future of Freedom Foundation</a> and is republished here with permission.</em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/03/a-dark-side-of-inflation/">A Dark Side of Inflation</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Economy Federal Reserve inflation Monetary Policy money Jacob Hornberger Political Hacks Concoct Excuses for Inflation https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/political-hacks-concoct-excuses-for-inflation/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4345cd01-25d1-2ec0-fb7b-789506fd6f8a Mon, 02 Aug 2021 20:50:15 +0000 <p>The more people are convinced higher prices are temporary, the less they will take steps to protect themselves by, for example, acquiring physical precious metals.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/political-hacks-concoct-excuses-for-inflation/">Political Hacks Concoct Excuses for Inflation</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Jerome Powell, after last week’s FOMC meeting, said inflation has run hotter than expected. However, he wants to assure Americans that the destruction of their dollars’ purchasing power is &#8220;temporary.&#8221;<span id="more-37839"></span></p> <p>His diagnosis? Ballooning demand for goods and services when the U.S. economy reopened from COVID shutdowns drove prices higher.</p> <p><i>Rest easy, folks. Prices will stop surging as soon as demand moderates and supply catches up!</i></p> <p>That’s the official line, anyway.</p> <p>Americans should not hold their breath. Powell’s diagnosis overlooks a couple other drivers of inflation.</p> <p>He is like other political hacks who have overrun the DC/Wall Street swamp. They never take responsibility for their actions and always they spin.</p> <p>Powell is aware, but failed to mention, that the Fed cut interest rates back to zero in March 2020 and the <a href="https://schiffgold.com/exploring-finance/fed-balance-sheet-july-2021-143b-added/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fed balance sheet has exploded</a> as the central bank accelerated bond purchases.</p> <p>He didn’t bring up the trillions of dollars in stimulus payments sent directly to U.S. consumers. Or the enhanced unemployment benefits which kept laid-off workers flush with free money.</p> <p>Or the moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures which eliminated rent and mortgage expenses for millions of Americans.</p> <p>To fund this extraordinary largesse, the Treasury sold trillions of dollars of new debt to the Fed which conjured the dollars to purchase those bonds from thin air.</p> <p>Powell knows these benefits were paid for by the inflation of the money supply. If supply and demand had anything to do with rising prices, it was because market signals weren’t allowed to function. Government lockdowns disrupted entire industries.</p> <p>The central planners always concoct some kind of story. Americans are feeling the reduction of their purchasing power.</p> <p>They are poorer, and Powell doesn’t want to be blamed. So he is lying about the causes and, incredibly, wants Americans to trust he has the solution. It is the standard operating procedure in the Swamp.</p> <p>The more people are convinced higher prices are temporary, the less they will take steps to protect themselves by, for example, acquiring physical precious metals.</p> <p>But lots of Americans don’t believe what they are being told. The flood of buyers into the bullion markets over the past 18 months is one indication of that.</p> <p>They understand inflation is a form of tax that hits the poor and middle class hardest. And rising prices aren’t going to be “transitory” so long as Congress and the Fed remain unrestrained.</p> <p><em>This post was <a href="https://www.moneymetals.com/news/2021/08/02/political-hacks-concoct-excuses-for-their-inflation-002346" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originally published at MoneyMetals.com</a>.</em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/political-hacks-concoct-excuses-for-inflation/">Political Hacks Concoct Excuses for Inflation</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Economics Federal Reserve Economy Inflation Money Clint Siegner Is Every Federal Agency a Spy Agency? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/is-every-federal-agency-a-spy-agency/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:253878cc-7311-aee0-0ad1-90ec9ae9c363 Mon, 02 Aug 2021 17:36:25 +0000 <p>A totalitarian state needs to keep a close eye on people to ensure compliance and control. With USPS and even the National Park Service joining the surveillance-state fray, if we’re not already there, it’s pretty close - and getting worse.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/is-every-federal-agency-a-spy-agency/">Is Every Federal Agency a Spy Agency?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>A totalitarian state needs to keep a close eye on people to ensure compliance and control. With USPS and even the National Park Service joining the surveillance-state fray, if we’re not already there, it’s pretty close &#8211; and getting worse.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: August 2, 2021 <span id="more-37834"></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 loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/OMq1BMZ5V74?start=67" title="YouTube video player" 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>Tweets: <a href="https://twitter.com/RepJimBanks/status/1407858355440324610" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Banks</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1407796277983813636" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Cruz</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenJohnKennedy/status/1420755060158390279" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kennedy</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/winning-strategy-for-liberty-the-marijuana-story-and-why-its-important/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Winning Strategy for Liberty: The Marijuana Story and Why it’s Important</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State</a></p> <p><a href="https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/biden-doubles-funding-for-police" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Biden doubles funding for police hiring program</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/25/federal-grant-program-nationalizes-local-policing/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Federal Grant Program Nationalizes Local Policing</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings" rel="noopener" target="_blank">St. George Tucker &#8211; View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Williams &#8211; New York Ratifying Convention (21 June 1788) </a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-073021:d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1267887444162777090" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/its-all-theater-federal-funding-of-61042ce926d4a2f97b8c7423" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/7d0d9c50-b932-44ff-8230-72c0967e3a18" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/73WrV4k9Kh/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/Fs7kq45gnLA3/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/996fe18c-cf33-44fc-a5ab-7188918548ac" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CR9WIDDLJSq/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/9e5f13a0-ec9b-4ca5-89ba-95661f870002" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1421146162292084741" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6826916559894773760/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/6104306b2661584b1f4a42c8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</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></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/is-every-federal-agency-a-spy-agency/">Is Every Federal Agency a Spy Agency?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Federal Agencies Path to Liberty Surveillance DHS FBI NPS Social Media Monitoring Spying surveillance USPS Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 38:52 A totalitarian state needs to keep a close eye on people to ensure compliance and control. With USPS and even the National Park Service joining the surveillance-state fray, if we’re not already there, it’s pretty close - and getting worse. A totalitarian state needs to keep a close eye on people to ensure compliance and control. With USPS and even the National Park Service joining the surveillance-state fray, if we’re not already there, it’s pretty close - and getting worse.<br /> A Revolution in Thought https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/a-revolution-in-thought/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4c836186-752b-fd65-b4c1-c32b523377cf Sun, 01 Aug 2021 16:36:20 +0000 <p>If all you have to go on is your high school history class, you probably think the American Revolution was all about "taxation without representation." That was part of it, but there was also a deeper revolution - as John Adams described it, a revolution in thought.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/a-revolution-in-thought/">A Revolution in Thought</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>If all you have to go on is your high school history class, you probably think the American Revolution was all about &#8220;taxation without representation.&#8221; That was part of it, but there was also a deeper revolution &#8211; as John Adams described it, a revolution in thought.</p> <blockquote><p><i>“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. …</i><i>This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”</i></p></blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">The American Revolution was about much more than just having representatives to tax you. But that&#39;s pretty much all government-run schools teach. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/pFR0UQvRyz">pic.twitter.com/pFR0UQvRyz</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1421506310340628481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 31, 2021</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/2016/11/05/the-evolution-of-sovereignty-in-american-political-thought-part-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Evolution of Sovereignty in American Political Thought</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/28/the-nullification-movement-is-a-revolution-in-thought/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Nullification Movement Is a Revolution in Thought</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/a-revolution-in-thought/">A Revolution in Thought</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. American Revolution Audio/Video Founding Principles Maharrey Minute political philosophy sovereignty Mike Maharrey Second Amendment “Sanctuaries” – The Worst of the Worst https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/01/second-amendment-sanctuaries-the-worst-of-the-worst/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:3d1c4c1f-6443-bad8-ef55-9d312989e0a7 Sun, 01 Aug 2021 12:00:07 +0000 <p>Following are the six worst "Second Amendment Sanctuary" laws passed this year.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/01/second-amendment-sanctuaries-the-worst-of-the-worst/">Second Amendment “Sanctuaries” – The Worst of the Worst</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>With Joe Biden in the White House, Republicans have once again become interested in blocking enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun control. This led to a flurry of bills introduced in state legislatures this year purporting to create &#8220;Second Amendment Sanctuaries.&#8221; In fact, many of these bills create sanctuaries for absolutely nothing.<span id="more-36498"></span></p> <p>The term &#8220;sanctuary&#8221; was borrowed from states and localities that have implemented policies that prohibit cooperation with some federal immigration enforcement. A number of jurisdictions have passed &#8220;sanctuary&#8221; laws to great effect. They work because they prohibit state and local officials from taking specific, well-defined actions. For instance, some states have prohibited local agencies from entering into contracts with the federal government to use jails for the purpose of detaining undocumented immigrants. Other jurisdictions have banned collecting immigration information, making it impossible to pass it along to federal authorities.</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice</a> for states and individuals in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” sanctuary policies are an extremely effective method to hinder the enforcement of federal immigration law because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. This is true of virtually every federal law, including gun control. Simply put, partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits. Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on gun control, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>This strategy is fully supported by a Supreme Court legal doctrine. Any state can legally bar its agents from enforcing immigration laws, federal gun control, or anything they please. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program.</p> <p>Significantly, no determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>Second Amendment Sanctuaries: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly</strong></p> <p>Some of the Second Amendment sanctuary legislation introduced this past year mirrored immigration sanctuary policies by banning specific actions. For instance, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/signed-by-the-governor-missouri-2nd-amendment-preservation-act-now-in-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a Missouri bill signed into law</a> prohibits state or local enforcement of any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The key to this law is that it goes on to define <em>specific</em> acts that qualify as &#8220;infringements.&#8221; Moving forward, state and local law enforcement can&#8217;t legally enforce those acts.</p> <p>Arizona took a different approach with <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-by-the-governor-arizona-law-bans-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">its new law</a>. It bans state and local enforcement of any federal gun control that is &#8220;inconsistent&#8221; with any law of the state of Arizona regarding the regulation of firearms. Again, this bans the enforcement of <em>specific</em> federal actions &#8211; anything that isn&#8217;t already in state law.</p> <p>But many of the laws purporting to create Second Amendment sanctuaries do no such thing because they don&#8217;t ban any specific action, or they include language that opens significant loopholes. One new law even asks permission from the feds to stop enforcing unconstitutional gun control.</p> <p>Following are the six worst &#8220;Second Amendment Sanctuary&#8221; laws passed this year.</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/05/signed-by-the-governor-north-dakota-takes-first-step-against-future-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>North Dakota</strong></a></p> <p>This new law has decent provisions banning enforcement of some future federal gun control, but it includes language that could open a pretty significant loophole. State or local agents can cooperate with the enforcement of banned future federal gun control if a federal court finds probable cause that “a national security threat exists.” It also gives law enforcement plenty of wiggle room to continue working on joint state/federal task forces when federal gun control is incidentally enforced.</p> <blockquote><p>“This section does not prohibit an agency or political subdivision of the state or a law enforcement officer or individual employed by an agency or political subdivision of the state from providing assistance to a federal agency or official for an offense not related to firearms or an offense to which firearms are incidental, including a drug offense, homicide, assault, kidnapping, sex offense, or human trafficking.”</p></blockquote> <p>With the exceptions and continued partnering with federal task forces, it’s hard to predict just how effective the ban on enforcement will play out in practice.</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-bill-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Arkansas</strong></a></p> <p>This is another law that might ban enforcement of some future federal gun control, but some convoluted language in the bill makes it uncertain if it will actually play out that way in practice.</p> <p>The law prohibits public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions from “enforcing or assisting federal agencies or officers in the enforcement of any federal statute, executive order, or federal agency directive that conflicts with Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, or any Arkansas law.”</p> <p>The bill declares a “federal ban” null and void in the state of Arkansas. A federal ban is broadly defined as “a federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that is enacted, adopted, or becomes effective on or after January 1, 2021, that infringes upon, calls into question, or prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, any magazine or other ammunition feeding device, or other firearm accessory.”</p> <p>The bill also includes a list of federal actions that would qualify as “a federal ban.”</p> <p>So far, so good, at least on the surface.</p> <p>However, much of the language of the bill is extremely convoluted and could leave a loophole for law enforcement officers to continue enforcing federal gun control. It specifically bars state and local agents from enforcing acts that “conflict with Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, or any Arkansas law.”</p> <p>Law enforcement lobby groups are likely to promote the view that “it’s not the job of a law enforcement officer to determine what’s constitutional or not.” And in practice, that means law enforcement agents could plausibly continue helping in the enforcement of all federal gun control in Arkansas until a court tells them to do otherwise.</p> <p>It appears that the bill intends to link the definition of a “federal ban” with acts state and local agents would be prohibited from enforcing. But the term “federal ban” does not appear in the clause prohibiting enforcement. The most generous reading of the bill would prohibit state and local officials from enforcing any federal action included in the definition of a federal ban. But the tangled language makes it difficult to determine how the law would be interpreted in practice.</p> <p>A leading grassroots activist in Arkansas called the bill “smoke and mirrors.”</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-fake-west-virginia-gun-sanctuary-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>West Virginia</strong>  </a></p> <p>This “Second Amendment Preservation Act” will likely serve only to protect most federal gun control. The law&#8217;s saving grace is that it does prohibit state enforcement of federal “red flag laws” in West Virginia. Other than that, the law is a tangled web of convoluted language.</p> <p>The law includes provisions that <em>appear</em> to block state and local police from enforcing federal gun control under the anti-commandeering doctrine.</p> <blockquote><p>“No agency of this state, political subdivision of this state, or employee of an agency, or political subdivision of this state, acting in his or her official capacity, may be commandeered by the United States government under an executive order or action of the President of the United States or under an act of the Congress of the United States. Federal commandeering of West Virginia law-enforcement for purposes of enforcement of federal firearms laws is prohibited.”</p></blockquote> <p>But the convoluted definition of anti-commandeering in the bill makes this provision utterly meaningless.</p> <blockquote><p>“Commandeering” means taking control of or seizing the assets, personnel, or operations of an agency of this state, or of a political subdivision of this state, or the employees of an agency or political subdivision of this state without the express authority for the control having been formally given by the state or political subdivision of the state.</p></blockquote> <p>This <strong>never</strong> happens.</p> <p>The feds don’t just go grab some local cops and force them to enforce federal gun control. State and local police do this voluntarily. The feds ask for help. State and local police provide it. And under this West Virginia law, they will be free to continue doing so.</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-senate-passes-bill-protecting-joe-bidens-gun-control-plans/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Texas</strong></a></p> <p>Texas didn&#8217;t pass any kind of Second Amendment law this year, but there were several introduced, and some were pretty solid. Unfortunately, the one that got the most traction would have protected any Joe Biden gun control plans.</p> <p>As introduced by Sen. Bob Hall, SB513 would have banned enforcement of new federal gun control and provided recourse for the people of Texas for those who don’t follow the prohibition. But an amendment introduced by the sponsor removed the penalty for enforcement actions done in conjunction with the federal government.</p> <p>As noted above, local police rarely, if ever, initiates and enforces federal gun control measures on their own. In almost every situation, they’re responding to a request from a federal agency to help, and in most situations, they do so as part of a federal/state joint law enforcement task force, of which there are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/state-federal-task-forces-and-the-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">literally hundreds throughout the country</a>.</p> <p>The amendment passed without opposition on the Senate floor. Instead of the bill banning participation in federal gun control enforcement, it would have codified in Texas law that state and local law enforcement can enforce any federal gun control measure that might be coming from the Biden Administration, as long as the federal government asks for help.</p> <p>Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say that Hall neutered his own bill at the behest of the law enforcement lobby group, CLEET. Fortunately, this one died in the House.</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/oklahoma-second-amendment-sanctuary-law-creates-a-sanctuary-for-nothing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Oklahoma</strong></a></p> <p>A law purporting to make Oklahoma a “Second Amendment Sanctuary State&#8221; did no such thing and it will have little or no practical effect. It is basically a non-binding resolution.</p> <p>The new law declares the following:</p> <blockquote><p>“Any federal, state, county or municipal act, law, executive order, administrative order, court order, rule, policy or regulation ordering the buy-back, confiscation or surrender of firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition from law-abiding citizens of this state shall be considered an infringement on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution of Oklahoma.”</p></blockquote> <p>Under the law, it is now “the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms within the borders of this state and to protect these rights from the infringement provided under the provisions of this act.”</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/california-vs-missouri-top-5-nullification-strategy-myths/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Compare this approach</a> with that of almost every immigration sanctuary city or state, and the difference becomes stark. The former includes an express prohibition on state and/or local law enforcement participation in federal immigration enforcement. While SB631 includes no such thing, it does not require any specific action to fulfill this “duty.”</p> <p>Lacking any specific actions or prohibition on actions for police or courts to follow, it’s almost certain they will take no action at all, instead deferring to the federal courts on any question of constitutionality.</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-tennessee-laws-ask-for-permission-to-protect-the-2nd-amendment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Tennessee</strong></a></p> <p>The new Tennessee law is the worst of the worst. It literally begs for permission to stop state and local enforcement of federal gun control.</p> <p>Sen. Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald)  and Rep. Scotty Campbell (R-Mountain City) sponsored the so-called “Tennessee Second Amendment Sanctuary Act.&#8221; Once again, we have a sanctuary for nothing.</p> <p>In 2015, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/signed-into-law-tennessee-takes-first-step-to-block-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee enacted a law</a> that bans Tennessee state or local public funds, personnel, or property from being used for the “implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule or regulation regulating the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories” <strong>if</strong> such use “would result in the violation of Tennessee statutory or common law or the Constitution of Tennessee.”</p> <p>The problem with this law is that it lacks any method to determine if a specific federal action violates the Tennessee constitution or a Tennessee law. For full effect, it needs to define specific acts that violate the state constitution. Instead, SB1335/HB928 created a process to determine constitutionality – an opinion by the U.S. or Tennessee Supreme Court. The new law added the following language to the current law.</p> <blockquote><p>“Pursuant to the sovereign authority of this state, a law, treaty, executive order, rule, or regulation of the United States government that has been found by the supreme court of the United States or the Tennessee supreme court to violate Article I, § 26 of the Constitution of Tennessee or the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is null, void, and unenforceable in this state.”</p></blockquote> <p>In other words, the state will continue to enforce all federal gun control until a court gives them permission to stop.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/01/second-amendment-sanctuaries-the-worst-of-the-worst/">Second Amendment “Sanctuaries” – The Worst of the Worst</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Right to Keep and Bear Arms 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries 2nd-amendment Federal Gun Control Gun Rights Sanctuary Mike Maharrey Now in Effect: North Dakota Law to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-north-dakota-law-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:bbd80abd-3d91-0024-8f57-d65e421b1380 Sun, 01 Aug 2021 10:43:15 +0000 <p>Today a North Dakota law that creates a process to end state cooperation with the enforcement of presidential executive orders went into effect. The state will opt out of enforcement if the attorney general issues an opinion that the executive order unconstitutionally restricts a person's rights.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-north-dakota-law-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">Now in Effect: North Dakota Law to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BISMARCK</strong>, N.D. (Aug. 1, 2021) – Today a North Dakota law that creates a process to end state cooperation with the enforcement of presidential executive orders went into effect. The state will opt out of enforcement if the attorney general issues an opinion that the executive order unconstitutionally restricts a person&#8217;s rights.<span id="more-37806"></span></p> <p>A coalition of nine Republicans introduced House Bill 1164 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ND/bill/1164/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1164</a>) on Jan 8. Gov. Doug Burgum signed the bill into law on April 23, after it passed both the House and Senate with strong majorities. The legislation revises <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/north-dakota-century-code/title-54-state-government/chapter-54-03-legislative-assembly/section-54-03-32-review-of-presidential-executive-orders" target="_blank" rel="noopener">N.D. Cent. Code § 54-03-32</a>  requiring the state attorney general to review any <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">presidential executive order</a> not affirmed by a Congressional vote on the recommendation of the <a href="https://www.legis.nd.gov/legislative-management" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Legislative Management</a>.</p> <p>The state, its political subdivisions, and any publicly-funded organization are prohibited from implementing any presidential executive order in the following categories that the North Dakota attorney general determines to be unconstitutional during review, or that have been found unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction:</p> <blockquote><p>a. Pandemics or other health emergencies;<br /> b. The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil;<br /> c. The regulation of the agriculture industry;<br /> d. The use of land;<br /> e. The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards; or<br /> f. The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>THE PROCESS IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>The enactment of HB1164 creates a process to potentially push back against overreaching executive authority. Upon the AG’s determination that an EO is unconstitutional, the state will be required to <strong>withdraw all resources and cease any cooperation with enforcement or implementation of the action</strong>.</p> <p>But the process will never even begin unless Legislative Management chooses to review a specific EO. While the law requires the attorney general to review any executive order referred to him/her by Legislative Management, the new law says Legislative Management “may review.” That leaves it to that body’s discretion. Even if it does initiate a review and send the EO off to the AG, the process then rests in the hands of a politically connected lawyer.</p> <p>In the second place, this cumbersome review process isn’t even necessary. The legislature already had the authority to review executive orders and prohibit their implementation for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the legislature could simply pass a bill prohibiting state enforcement of specific types of executive orders without any lengthy and unwieldy constitutional review. The state has the right to direct its personnel and resources as it sees fit. It can prohibit the enforcement of federal laws or the implementation of federal programs for any reason at all. North Dakota could withdraw state resources from the enforcement of federal acts just because it’s Tuesday and there’s snow on the ground.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>Based on five major cases dating back to 1842, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a> holds that the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> (1997) serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p>In <em>Murphy v. NCAA</em> (2018), the Court held that Congress can’t take any action that “dictates what a state legislature may and may not do” even when the state action conflicts with federal law. Samuel Alito wrote, “a more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.” He continued:</p> <p><em>The anticommandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States … Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.</em></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-north-dakota-law-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">Now in Effect: North Dakota Law to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Review State Bills anti-commandeering doctrine Executive Orders HB1164 North Dakota Amanda Bowers Now in Effect: Louisiana Law That Significantly Expands Medical Marijuana Program Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-louisiana-law-that-significantly-expands-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3bbb6569-ee74-d445-90b2-543aca5ddd5c Sun, 01 Aug 2021 10:06:19 +0000 <p>Under the new law, medical marijuana patients can access smokable products. Under the old program, patients could only vaporize cannabis preparations using a “metered-dose inhaler,” but they could not purchase whole-plant flower. Smoking marijuana was illegal under the old law, even for qualified patients.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-louisiana-law-that-significantly-expands-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/">Now in Effect: Louisiana Law That Significantly Expands Medical Marijuana Program Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BATON ROUGE</strong>, La. (Aug. 1, 2021) – Today, a Louisiana law that will significantly expand the state’s medical marijuana program went into effect despite federal cannabis prohibition.<span id="more-37775"></span></p> <p>Rep. Tanner Magee (R-Houma) introduced House Bill 391 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/bill/HB391/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB391</a>) on April 1. Under the new law, medical marijuana patients can access smokable products. Under the old program, patients could only vaporize cannabis preparations using a “metered-dose inhaler,” but they could not purchase whole-plant flower. Smoking marijuana was illegal under the old law, even for qualified patients.</p> <p><a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/louisiana-bill-to-legalize-smokable-medical-marijuana-heads-to-governors-desk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Marijuana Moment</em> called HB391</a> “a significant expansion of the state’s current program.”</p> <p>The Senate passed HB391 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/rollcall/HB391/id/1086525">a 23-14 vote</a> with some amendments. The House concurred with the Senate version by <a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/rollcall/HB391/id/1090028" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 75-18 vote</a>. With Gov. John Bel Edwards&#8217;s signature, the law went into effect on Aug. 1.</p> <p>This new law marks the second expansion of the state’s medical marijuana program in as many years. In 2020, Gov. Edwards signed <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/now-in-effect-three-louisiana-laws-expand-medical-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">three bills loosening restrictions on medicinal cannabis</a>.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>While marijuana has become more widely accepted across the U.S., under federal law, it remains illegal. As we’ve seen with immigration sanctuary cities, when state and local enforcement ends, the federal government has an extremely difficult time enforcing their acts.</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, Louisiana legalized medical marijuana in 2015, but there wasn’t any viable program in the state until <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/08/now-in-effect-louisiana-medical-marijuana-law-shields-patients-and-caregivers-from-prosecution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the passage of two laws the following year</a>.  The state <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/08/now-in-effect-louisiana-laws-expand-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">expanded the program in 2018</a>  before expanding it again last year. Further expansion would remove yet another layer of laws punishing the possession and use of marijuana in the state, but federal prohibition would remain 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>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 i</a>n 2019. New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election. Earlier this year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action.</p> <p>With 36 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 18 legalizing for adult recreational use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</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>The passage of HB391 highlights another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – the law 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-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/08/now-in-effect-louisiana-law-that-significantly-expands-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/">Now in Effect: Louisiana Law That Significantly Expands Medical Marijuana Program Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis HB391 Louisiana Marijuana Medical Cannabis Amanda Bowers It’s all Theater: Federal Funding of Local Police https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/its-all-theater-federal-funding-of-local-police/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:47bfc373-cc57-05c2-9638-a7b3e363465e Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:48:05 +0000 <p>One side claims the other is trying to “defund” or “abolish” police, while the other is actively trying to double federal funding - which, of course, comes with federal strings and federal priorities. But they’re all full of it - the feds shouldn’t be involved in local policing in the first place.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/its-all-theater-federal-funding-of-local-police/">It’s all Theater: Federal Funding of Local Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>One side claims the other is trying to “defund” or “abolish” police, while the other is actively trying to double federal funding &#8211; which, of course, comes with federal strings and federal priorities. But they’re all full of it &#8211; the feds shouldn’t be involved in local policing in the first place.</p> <p>Path to Liberty. Fast Friday Edition: July 30, 2021 <span id="more-37822"></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 loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/qi8IT9zf5KU" title="YouTube video player" 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>Tweets: <a href="https://twitter.com/RepJimBanks/status/1407858355440324610" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Banks</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1407796277983813636" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Cruz</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenJohnKennedy/status/1420755060158390279" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kennedy</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/winning-strategy-for-liberty-the-marijuana-story-and-why-its-important/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Winning Strategy for Liberty: The Marijuana Story and Why it’s Important</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State</a></p> <p><a href="https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/biden-doubles-funding-for-police" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Biden doubles funding for police hiring program</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/25/federal-grant-program-nationalizes-local-policing/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Federal Grant Program Nationalizes Local Policing</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings" rel="noopener" target="_blank">St. George Tucker &#8211; View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Williams &#8211; New York Ratifying Convention (21 June 1788) </a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072821:7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1267175067107098624" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/top-7-ways-they-spy-on-you-610199886625c4d04e128127" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="//www.brighteon.com/2173107c-2d76-4638-ac47-a2a7098ea0e7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/71ldEFft4v/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/QA5HIXH0nxJ6/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/6168385a-e4b7-4929-974c-cff865138659" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CR4VM8_r_LD/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/3f1376a4-5d66-4cab-b64c-a8fa99ec018c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1420421354923315202" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</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></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/its-all-theater-federal-funding-of-local-police/">It’s all Theater: Federal Funding of Local Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Path to Liberty Police Republocrats COPS Program Federal Funding of Police Joe Biden police powers Police-State Ted Cruz Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 14:37 One side claims the other is trying to “defund” or “abolish” police, while the other is actively trying to double federal funding - which, of course, comes with federal strings and federal priorities. But they’re all full of it - the feds shouldn’t be ... One side claims the other is trying to “defund” or “abolish” police, while the other is actively trying to double federal funding - which, of course, comes with federal strings and federal priorities. But they’re all full of it - the feds shouldn’t be involved in local policing in the first place.<br /> True Civil Libertarians Must Oppose the IRS https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/30/true-civil-libertarians-must-oppose-the-irs/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:22553e71-d0dc-d89e-d802-2ef577166c4f Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:24:41 +0000 <p>Progressives who work to end individual rights violations committed by the NSA, FBI, DEA, CIA, and other federal agencies usually overlook, or even support, the routine violations of Americans’ rights by the IRS.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/30/true-civil-libertarians-must-oppose-the-irs/">True Civil Libertarians Must Oppose the IRS</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>Progressives who work to end individual rights violations committed by the NSA, FBI, DEA, CIA, and other federal agencies usually overlook, or even support, the routine violations of Americans’ rights by the IRS.<span id="more-36499"></span></p> <p>For example, progressives rarely, if ever, speak out against the IRS’s targeting of the opponents of those in power. When liberal Democrats control the White House, the IRS targets advocates of free markets. When hawkish Republicans are in power, the IRS targets antiwar activists.</p> <p>The Democrats’ election reform legislation would require political organizations to divulge their top donors. Such donor disclosure requirements can be, and have been, used to intimidate donors from supporting “controversial” causes. Yet the requirements are supported by many progressives in the name of getting big money out of politics.</p> <p>In order to “pay for” their massive spending schemes, President Biden and his congressional allies are planning a huge increase in the IRS budget. The declared purpose is to enable the tax agency to bring in to the government much more money by ramping up efforts to identify and punish those not paying the “proper” amount of taxes.</p> <p>The tax code’s complexity guarantees many innocent Americans will be caught in the IRS’s expanded net. Yet progressives will support this because they favor the new social programs the new revenue will finance, and because they believe the IRS will only target billionaires and big corporations.</p> <p>The truth is that most of the new revenue will be collected from middle-and-working-class Americans. These Americans will be targeted because, unlike billionaires and big corporations, middle-and-working-class Americans cannot afford legions of tax lawyers and accountants to level the playing field between them and the tax agency. They are more likely to simply give in to the IRS’s demands.</p> <p>Waiters and waitresses may even be subjected to audits to ensure they are paying taxes on their tips.</p> <p>Another frightening proposal is for the government to impose a “mileage tax” to fund highway construction. A mileage tax would require government to keep track of how many miles every American drives. Some claim that a mileage tax can be implemented without creating a massive new system of government surveillance. Even If this were true, anyone who expects the government not to use this new power for nefarious purposes needs to Google Edward Snowden.</p> <p>Progressives’ blind spot toward IRS abuses of liberty is rooted in their belief that one can separate “economic” liberties from “civil” liberties. This allows them to support an abusive tax system to fund a welfare state (and, for an increasing number of progressives, a warfare state) while opposing other infringements on liberty. These progressives are the mirror image of conservatives who defend economic liberty while supporting government infringements on personal lifestyle choices.</p> <p>One of the most urgent tasks of those who wish to restore a free society in all areas is to end the artificial distinction between economic and civil liberties. By defending all liberty — no matter if it is classified as economic liberty or civil liberty — we can best protect against violations of any liberties.</p> <p><em>Copyright © 2021 by <a href="http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/july/12/true-civil-libertarians-must-oppose-the-irs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">RonPaul Institute</a>. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.</em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/30/true-civil-libertarians-must-oppose-the-irs/">True Civil Libertarians Must Oppose the IRS</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Current Events IRS irs Progressives Taxation Ron Paul Why Do We Care What This Guy Says? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c18123fa-fad9-c97f-037d-3bdf47e3c200 Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:02:36 +0000 <p>Eight times a year, the Federal Reserve holds a meeting. Markets react wildly to the messaging coming out of these central bank gatherings, especially to what the Fed chairman says.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/">Why Do We Care What This Guy Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Eight times a year, the Federal Reserve holds a meeting. Markets react wildly to the messaging coming out of these central bank gatherings, especially to what the Fed chairman says.</p> <p>This raises a question: why do we care so much about what a bunch of politically connected bankers has to say?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Letting a bunch of politically-connected central bankers have so much power over the entire economy &#8211; isn&#39;t a really good idea. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/endthefed?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#endthefed</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#economy</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://t.co/0uEjGVintg">pic.twitter.com/0uEjGVintg</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1420475395191697410?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 28, 2021</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/2021/06/28/how-the-national-bank-destroyed-the-limits-of-constitution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How the National Bank Destroyed the Limits of the Constitution</a></p> <p><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">The Federal Reserve: The Engine that Powers the Most Powerful Government in History</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/18/the-constitutionality-of-a-national-bank-hamilton-vs-jefferson/">The Constitutionality of a National Bank: Hamilton vs. Jefferson</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/">Why Do We Care What This Guy Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Federal Reserve Maharrey Minute Constitution End the Fed Jerome Powell National Bank Mike Maharrey Fighting the Urban Surveillance Infrastructure https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fighting-the-urban-surveillance-infrastructure/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:86778d22-de60-9149-581f-e737b4e24ca4 Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:36:42 +0000 <p>The government uses a vast multi-layered system of surveillance to keep tabs on people. From cell phones to traffic cameras - big brother is always watching (and listening). It is also generally believed that there is collusion between the government and big tech.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fighting-the-urban-surveillance-infrastructure/">Fighting the Urban Surveillance Infrastructure</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>The government uses a vast multi-layered system of surveillance to keep tabs on people. From cell phones to traffic cameras &#8211; big brother is always watching (and listening). It is also generally believed that there is collusion between the government and big tech.</p> <p>So what do we do about it?<span id="more-37731"></span></p> <p>In <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/06/graphic-overlapping-infrastructure-urban-surveillance-and-how-fix-it" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an article published recently by the Electronic Freedom Foundation</a>, Matthew Guariglia discussed various methods of surveillance and suggested some ways that citizens can push back.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;if you could take a cross-section of the average city block, you would see the ways that the built environment of surveillance—its physical presence in, over, and under our cities—makes this an entwined problem that must be combatted through entwined solutions.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Included in that environment of surveillance are the following methods:</p> <ul> <li>Satellite surveillance &#8211; Can be used for reconnaissance by intelligence &amp; military, and can allow governments to intercept or listen in on data transmitted internationally.</li> <li>Internet traffic surveillance &#8211; The NSA uses programs like PRISM and XKEYSCORE to monitor emails, search history and keystrokes in real time.</li> <li>Cellular communication (tower) surveillance &#8211; Information collected by telecom companies including metadata, locations, text/call content that can be acquired by police and govt with a warrant.</li> <li>Drones &#8211; Can spy on protests and people just going about their daily lives, from a distance.</li> <li>Social media surveillance &#8211; Mass collection of information. Police also use it to infiltrate protest organizing and political groups online.</li> <li>Cameras &#8211; Includes facial recognition technology and networked surveillance cameras that collect information on communities.</li> <li>Surveillance of cell phones &#8211; The government has various ways of collecting stored information, including just buying it commercially.</li> <li>Automated license plate readers &#8211; ALPR technology can be used to target drivers who visit sensitive places including immigration centers, places of worship, protests, and gun shops.</li> <li>Acoustic gunshot detection &#8211; The tech detects loud noises and triangulates where they come from, but that&#8217;s not all. It can record other things, such as voices, and is unfortunately prone to false reports.</li> <li>Internet-connected security cameras &#8211; Doorbell cameras, for example, can record footage that is more easily accessible to the police because they can skip the user and go straight to the company with a warrant.</li> <li>Electronic monitoring &#8211; A form of digital incarceration that can monitor where you are at all times.</li> <li>Police GPS tracking &#8211; Police can track individuals by installing GPS on their vehicles.</li> <li>International internet traffic surveillance &#8211; Police and government use underground fiber optic cable to surveil communication between here and abroad.</li> </ul> <p>Some of the suggestions on tackling the surveillance behemoth included; protecting our internet security through <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/new-bill-would-make-needed-steps-toward-curbing-mass-surveillance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FISA reform</a>, limiting police acquisition of drones and military equipment through<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/community-control-police-spy-tech" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> CCOP programs</a> that give communities oversight over surveillance technology, and also by using encryption.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Using encrypted communication apps, such as Signal, or leaving your cell phone at home when attending political demonstrations are some ways to prevent [cellular tower] surveillance.&#8221; Also,</p> <p><a href="https://support.ring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360054941551-How-to-Set-Up-Video-End-to-End-Encryption-E2EE-">&#8220;Opting in to encrypt your Amazon Ring footage</a> and opting out of seeing police footage requests on the Neighbors app are two ways to ensure police have to <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/amazon-rings-end-end-encryption-what-it-means">bring a warrant to you</a>, rather than Amazon, if they think your camera may have witnessed a crime.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Another method, and one of our main tactics here at the Tenth Amendment Center, is to support state and local legislation to limit surveillance. For example, the <a href="https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/lieu-wyden-daines-and-mcclintock-introduce-bipartisan-legislation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cell Site Simulator Warrant Act</a> would &#8220;defend Americans’ rights by requiring the government to get a warrant to deploy cell-site simulators, also known as “stingray” devices, which are used by law enforcement agencies to track individuals and identify all the phones in an area.&#8221;</p> <p>Many states tackled issues of surveillance in the 2021 legislative session with bills like the Virginia ban on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/to-the-governor-virginia-passes-de-facto-ban-on-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facial Recognition software</a>, and others such as <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/kansas-bill-would-limit-warrantless-surveillance-of-private-property/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this one</a> in Kansas that would limit warrantless surveillance of private property.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Legislation can (also) curb mass surveillance of our public thoughts and interactions on social media by requiring police to have reasonable suspicion before conducting social media surveillance on individuals, groups, or hashtags. Also, police should be barred from using phony accounts to sneak into closed-access social media groups, absent a warrant.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fighting-the-urban-surveillance-infrastructure/">Fighting the Urban Surveillance Infrastructure</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Surveillance biometric surveillance Encryption Facial Recognition Software NSA Surveillance Police surveillance Amanda Bowers Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Prohibits Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control on Firearms Made in the State https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-prohibits-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control-on-firearms-made-in-the-state/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d68e36e3-d382-0955-fb05-4fbb1743f911 Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:06:23 +0000 <p>Titled the "Intrastate Firearms Protection Act, SB 59 declares firearms manufactured in Arkansas are not subject to some federal laws and regulations.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-prohibits-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control-on-firearms-made-in-the-state/">Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Prohibits Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control on Firearms Made in the State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>LITTLE ROCK</strong>, Ark. (July 29, 2021) &#8211; Yesterday, a law banning state officials from enforcing future federal firearms laws on guns manufactured and kept within the state of Arkansas. How the law plays out in practice will largely depend on human action.<span id="more-37265"></span></p> <p>Sen. Bob Ballinger (R) introduced Senate Bill 59 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/bill/SB59/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB59</a>) back in January. Unlike more common Second Amendment Protection Acts, this law rests primarily on the commerce clause. Titled the &#8220;Intrastate Firearms Protection Act, SB 59 declares firearms manufactured in Arkansas are not subject to some federal laws and regulations.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;A personal firearm, a firearms accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Arkansas and that remains within the borders of Arkansas is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce, as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The law also bans state and federal agents from enforcing future gun laws &#8220;relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that <strong>is owned or manufactured</strong> commercially or privately in Arkansas so long as the personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition is within the borders of Arkansas.&#8221;</p> <p>By including &#8220;owned OR manufactured&#8221; in Arkansas in the language, the law technically bars the enforcement of any future federal gun control within the borders of the state since <strong>all</strong> firearms <strong>owned</strong> within Arkansas fall under the law.</p> <p>Any person, including a federal agent, who violates the law is subject to Class A Misdemeanor charges.</p> <p>The Senate passed SB59 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/SB59/id/1043070" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 28-7 vote</a>, and the House approved the measure <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/SB59/id/1054208" target="_blank" rel="noopener">74-18</a>. With Gov. Hutchinson&#8217;s signature, the law went into effect on July 28.</p> <p>SB59 will work together with <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-bill-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a second bill signed by Hutchinson</a> that <strong>could</strong> prohibit enforcement of some future federal gun control,</p> <p><strong>IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>The state can legally punish state officers for violating the law, but prosecuting federal agents will be problematic.</p> <p>Under federal statutes, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of his or her official duties <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF4zyY2Kd8&amp;list=PLZyloySS5-JSG8epr6kvgfSibXxwWVUZa&amp;index=16">gets removed to federal court</a>. In other words, the current structure of the legal system makes it virtually impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court. Lawyers for the charged federal agent would immediately make a motion to remove the case to a federal district court under <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj89u-EiIrYAhWKTSYKHfGGBSQQFggpMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F28%2F1442&amp;usg=AOvVaw2koNNAHVDjbbncXt0drNQ0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)</a>. Unless the state judge refused to comply, the case would then be out of state hands.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the threat of arrest would create problems for federal agents trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws in Arkansas and would certainly gum up the works even if they were never prosecuted. The question is whether or not local law enforcement will be willing to enforce the law on federal officials.</p> <p>More broadly speaking, the impact this new law will have in practice will largely depend on how Arkansas residents and law enforcement officers treat the law. If large numbers of Arkansans take advantage of the law and manufacture firearms within the borders of the state for sale within the state, the federal government would have a hard time enforcing future laws on Arkansas gun owners.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p>But if only a handful of Arkansas take action under the law and the state refuses to stand behind its own law, it could prove disastrous. This was the case in Kansas.</p> <p>SB59 is similar to a law passed in Kansas in 2013. Two men took action under that state law and paid a high price. Shane Cox manufactured and sold a silencer without paying applicable federal licensing fees and taxes thinking he was protected by the state law. Jeremy Kettler bought and used the silencer. The feds came down hard on them and the state refused to act.</p> <p>When Cox and Kettler were arrested by federal agents, Attorney Derek General Schmidt refused to take action against the federal agents and refused to intervene in the federal court case despite the urging of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and many others. Cox and Kettler were found guilty in a jury trial on Nov. 14, 2016.</p> <p>Ultimately, if things play out like they did in Kansas where only one or two people take action&#8230;and law enforcement helps the feds&#8230;it&#8217;ll be problematic.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-prohibits-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control-on-firearms-made-in-the-state/">Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Prohibits Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control on Firearms Made in the State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Uncategorized Arkansas Commerce Clause Federal Gun Control Firearms Freedom Act Right to Keep and Bear Arms SB59 Mike Maharrey Just Because They Can Doesn’t Mean They Should https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/just-because-they-can-doesnt-mean-they-should/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3b71e3f8-6fcb-1b42-117e-f46194195595 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:29:14 +0000 <p>Just because I point out that a government has a certain power doesn't necessarily mean I think it should use it.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/just-because-they-can-doesnt-mean-they-should/">Just Because They Can Doesn’t Mean They Should</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Just because I point out that a government has a certain power doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean I think it should use it.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Just because a government CAN do something, doesn&#39;t mean it should. And most of the time, it shouldn&#39;t. <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://twitter.com/hashtag/politics?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#politics</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://t.co/iaK3GS9bVr">pic.twitter.com/iaK3GS9bVr</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1420055363051671554?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 27, 2021</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 class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-commerce-clause/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Commerce Clause</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/the-war-on-drugs-unconstitutional-since-day-one/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The War on Drugs: Unconstitutional Since Day One</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/just-because-they-can-doesnt-mean-they-should/">Just Because They Can Doesn’t Mean They Should</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Commerce Clause Constitution government power Mike Maharrey Top-7 Ways they Spy on You https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/top-7-ways-they-spy-on-you/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f99b9f52-0aa5-c9c7-b696-de0f9a6ccb5a Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:51:19 +0000 <p>Federal, state, local - internet, cell phones, social, acoustics, and more - tracking the top ways they track whatever you do.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/top-7-ways-they-spy-on-you/">Top-7 Ways they Spy on You</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Federal, state, local &#8211; internet, cell phones, social, acoustics, and more &#8211; tracking the top ways they track whatever you do. </p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 28, 2021 <span id="more-37813"></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 loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/NyquHIdsbhQ?start=44" title="YouTube video player" 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://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-v/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus No. 5 (13 Dec 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.founderoftheday.com/founder-of-the-day/brutus-v" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Founder of the Day &#8211; The Abuse of Necessary and Proper &#8211; Brutus V</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.taraross.com/post/the-anti-federalist-papers-brutus-v" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tara Ross: Brutus V</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072621:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1266449997566603264" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/infinite-and-incomprehensible-antifederalist-brutus-no-60fef5ef6625c4d04e11c87d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072621:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/29b16421-ba65-41ae-b013-10599cd6797b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/v/RB4rGZLW/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/Mq9mNm9pBT98/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/f15d350d-caeb-4725-b929-5f24d73e41de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRzKmv4tJlG/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/1bdce2b5-e3eb-470b-9412-c3dee8e67bc0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1419696434673197060" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60fef9a99af9cd568adca130" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6825485013249855489" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</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></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/top-7-ways-they-spy-on-you/">Top-7 Ways they Spy on You</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Path to Liberty Surveillance EFF Privacy Spying surveillance Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 38:59 Federal, state, local - internet, cell phones, social, acoustics, and more - tracking the top ways they track whatever you do. Federal, state, local - internet, cell phones, social, acoustics, and more - tracking the top ways they track whatever you do. <br /> Authoritarians Drunk on Power https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/28/authoritarians-drunk-on-power/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:53fe2320-2cb3-cc5b-4d51-493f75dbc551 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:48:36 +0000 <p>Most of all, use your power - and there is power in our numbers - to nullify anything and everything the government does that undermines the freedom principles on which this nation was founded.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/28/authoritarians-drunk-on-power/">Authoritarians Drunk on Power</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>It is time to recalibrate the government.</p> <p>For years now, we have suffered the injustices, cruelties, corruption and abuse of an entrenched government bureaucracy that has no regard for the Constitution or the rights of the citizenry.</p> <p>By “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.</p> <p>We are overdue for a systemic check on the government’s overreaches and power grabs.</p> <p>We have lingered too long in this strange twilight zone where ego trumps justice, propaganda perverts truth, and imperial presidents—empowered to indulge their authoritarian tendencies by legalistic courts, corrupt legislatures and a disinterested, distracted populace—rule by fiat rather than by the rule of law.</p> <p>This COVID-19 pandemic has provided the government with the perfect excuse to lay claim to a long laundry list of terrifying lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level) that override the Constitution: the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die, and impose health mandates on large segments of the population.</p> <p>These kinds of crises tend to bring out the authoritarian tendencies in government.</p> <p>That’s no surprise: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</p> <p>Where we find ourselves now is in the unenviable position of needing to rein in all three branches of government—the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative—that have exceeded their authority and grown drunk on power.</p> <p>This is exactly the kind of concentrated, absolute power the founders attempted to guard against by establishing a system of checks of balances that separate and shares power between three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.</p> <p>“The system of checks and balances that the Framers envisioned now lacks effective checks and is no longer in balance,” <a href="http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/marshall.pdf">concludes law professor William P. Marshall</a>. “The implications of this are serious. The Framers designed a system of separation of powers to combat government excess and abuse and to curb incompetence. They also believed that, in the absence of an effective separation-of-powers structure, such ills would inevitably follow. Unfortunately, however, power once taken is not easily surrendered.”</p> <p>Unadulterated power in any branch of government is a menace to freedom.</p> <p>There’s no point debating which political party would be <em>more</em> dangerous with these powers.</p> <p>The fact that any individual—or branch of government—of any political persuasion is empowered to act like a dictator is danger enough.</p> <p>So what we can do to wrest back control over a runaway government and an imperial presidency?</p> <p>It won’t be easy.</p> <p>We are the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority.</p> <p>This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government: from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations.</p> <p>We are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American.</p> <p>We are viewed as relatively expendable in the eyes of government: faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars. Those in power aren’t losing any sleep over the indignities we are being made to suffer or the possible risks to our health. All they seem to care about are power and control.</p> <p>We are being made to suffer countless abuses at the government’s hands.</p> <p>We have little protection against standing armies (domestic and military), <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/30/16571226/nsa-surveillance-reform-702-burr-wyden-goodlatte">invasive surveillance</a>, marauding SWAT teams, an overwhelming government arsenal of assault vehicles and firepower, and a barrage of laws that criminalize everything from vegetable gardens to lemonade stands.</p> <p>In the name of national security, we’re being subjected to government agencies such as the NSA, FBI and others listening in on our phone calls, reading our mail, monitoring our emails, and carrying out warrantless “black bag” searches of our homes. Adding to the abuse, we have to deal with surveillance cameras mounted on street corners and in traffic lights, weather satellites co-opted for use as spy cameras from space, and thermal sensory imaging devices that can detect heat and movement through the walls of our homes.</p> <p>That doesn’t even begin to touch on the many ways in which our Fourth Amendment rights are trampled upon by militarized police and SWAT teams empowered to act as laws unto themselves.</p> <p>In other words, freedom—or what’s left of it—is threatened from every direction.</p> <p>The predators of the police state are wreaking havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government doesn’t listen to the citizenry, it refuses to abide by the Constitution, which is our rule of law, and it treats the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers are shooting unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—are being armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies are fleecing taxpayers. Government technicians are spying on our emails and phone calls. Government contractors are making a killing by waging endless wars abroad.</p> <p>In other words, the American police state is alive and well and flourishing.</p> <p>Nothing has changed, and nothing will change unless we insist on it.</p> <p>We have arrived at the <a href="http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/v-for-vendetta/253752/v-for-vendetta-10-years-later-closer-to-evey-s-future">dystopian future depicted in the 2005 film <em>V for Vendetta</em></a>, which is no future at all.</p> <p>Set in the year 2020, <em>V for Vendetta</em> (written and produced by the Wachowskis) provides an eerie glimpse into a parallel universe in which a government-engineered virus wreaks havoc on the world. Capitalizing on the people’s fear, a totalitarian government comes to power that knows all, sees all, controls everything and promises safety and security above all.</p> <p>Concentration camps (jails, private prisons and detention facilities) have been established to house political prisoners and others deemed to be enemies of the state. Executions of undesirables (extremists, troublemakers and the like) are common, while other enemies of the state are made to “disappear.” Populist uprisings and protests are met with extreme force. The television networks are controlled by the government with the purpose of perpetuating the regime. And most of the population is hooked into an entertainment mode and are clueless.</p> <p>Sounds painfully familiar, doesn’t it?</p> <p>As director James McTeighe observed about the tyrannical regime in <em>V for Vendetta</em>, “It really showed what can happen when society is ruled by government, rather than the government being run as a voice of the people. I don’t think it’s such a big leap to say things like that can happen when leaders stop listening to the people.”</p> <p>Clearly, our leaders have stopped listening to the American people.</p> <p>We are—and have been for some time—the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority. This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government—from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations.</p> <p>We are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American. We are relatively expendable in the eyes of government—faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars.</p> <p>What will it take for the government to <em>start</em> listening to the people again?</p> <p>In <em>V for Vendetta</em>, as in my new novel <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Erik-Blair-Diaries-Battlefield-Dead/dp/1954968027/"><em>The Erik Blair Diaries</em></a>, it takes an act of terrorism for the people to finally mobilize and stand up to the government’s tyranny: in <em>Vendetta</em>, V the film’s masked crusader blows up the seat of government, while in <em>Erik Blair</em>, freedom fighters plot to unmask the Deep State.</p> <p>These acts of desperation and outright anarchy are what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent: people get desperate, citizens lose hope, and lawful, nonviolent resistance gives way to unlawful, violent resistance.</p> <p>This way lies madness.</p> <p>Then again, this madness may be unavoidable unless we can wrest back control over our runaway government starting at the local level.</p> <p>How to do this? It’s not rocket science.</p> <p>There is no 10-step plan. If there were a 10-step plan, however, the first step would be as follows: turn off the televisions, tune out the politicians, and do your part to stand up for freedom principles in your own communities.</p> <p>Stand up for your own rights, of course, but more importantly, stand up for the rights of those with whom you might disagree. Defend freedom at all costs. Defend justice at all costs. Make no exceptions based on race, religion, creed, politics, immigration status, sexual orientation, etc. Vote like Americans, for a change, not Republicans or Democrats.</p> <p>Most of all, use your power &#8211; and there is power in our numbers &#8211; to nullify anything and everything the government does that undermines the freedom principles on which this nation was founded.</p> <p>Don’t play semantics. Don’t justify. Don’t politicize it. If it carries even a whiff of tyranny, oppose it. Demand that your representatives in government cut you a better deal, one that abides by the Constitution and doesn’t just attempt to sidestep it.</p> <p>That’s their job: make them do it.</p> <p>As I make clear in my book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-America-War-American-People/dp/1590793099"><em>Battlefield America: The War on the American People</em></a>, all freedoms hang together. They fall together, as well.</p> <p>The police state does not discriminate. Eventually, we will all suffer the same fate.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/28/authoritarians-drunk-on-power/">Authoritarians Drunk on Power</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Current Events Federal Power centralization Consolidation Police State power Surveillance John Whitehead Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Creats Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-creats-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5715d5ef-fc3c-409f-e75d-16d57c7b9aff Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:34:38 +0000 <p>This process could set the stage to nullify some executive orders, but without further action, it will have no practical impact.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-creats-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Creats Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>LITTLE ROCK</strong>, Ark. (July 28, 2021) – Today, an Arkansas law went into effect that creates a mechanism to review presidential executive orders and potentially end state cooperation with enforcement of certain EOs determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process could set the stage to nullify some executive orders, but without further action, it will have no practical impact.<span id="more-37698"></span></p> <p>Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio), along with 43 fellow Republican cosponsors, introduced House Bill 1637 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/bill/HB1637/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1637</a>) on March 4. Under the new law, the Joint Budget Committee (during the legislative session) or the Legislative Council (during the interim) <em>may  </em>“review <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an executive order</a> issued by the President of the United States that has not been affirmed by a vote of the United States Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the United States Constitution.” The review process is complex and will involve an appropriate standing committee in the legislature along with the state attorney general.</p> <p>Ultimately, the law prohibits the state, a political subdivision, or any entity that receives an appropriation of funds from the General Assembly from using state resources and personnel to implement a presidential executive order <em>if</em> there is a determination that EO is unconstitutional, approved by an affirmative vote by the Legislative Council, or the Joint Budget Committee. The governor will then have to direct state agencies to cease implementation of the executive order.</p> <p>The law covers federal EOs that relate to any of the following:</p> <ul> <li>Pandemics or other health emergencies</li> <li>The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil</li> <li>The regulation of the agriculture industry</li> <li>The use of land</li> <li>The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards</li> <li>The regulation of the constitutional right to bear arms</li> </ul> <p>The Senate passed HB1637 <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1637/id/1043006" target="_blank" rel="noopener">by a 27-7 vote</a>. The House <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1637/id/1031406" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed the measure by a 75-22 vote</a>. With Gov. Asa Hutchinson&#8217;s signature on April 4, the law went into effect July 28.</p> <p><strong>THE PROCESS IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>The enactment of HB1637 creates a process to potentially push back against overreaching executive authority. Upon an order by the governor based on a determination of unconstitutionality, the state will be required to <strong>withdraw all resources and cease any cooperation with enforcement or implementation of the action</strong>. But in practice, the bill will likely have very little if any effect.</p> <p>In the first place, it does not <strong>require</strong> any review. The language says “<strong>may</strong> review.” That leaves it to the discretion of the Joint Budget Committee or Legislative Council to take action on a specific EO. The bill doesn’t require them to do anything. It’s nothing but a suggestion.</p> <p>There is also no requirement for the governor to end state enforcement of an executive order even if it is ultimately determined to be unconstitutional. That action would be solely at his discretion.</p> <p>In the second place, this cumbersome review process isn’t even necessary. The legislature already has the authority to review executive orders and prohibit their implementation for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the legislature could simply pass a bill prohibiting state enforcement of specific types of executive orders without any lengthy and unwieldy constitutional review. The state has the right to direct its personnel and resources as it sees fit. It can prohibit the enforcement of federal laws or the implementation of federal programs for any reason at all. Arkansas could withdraw state resources from the enforcement of federal acts just because it’s Tuesday and there’s snow on the ground.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>Based on James Madison’s <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-creats-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Creats Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Review State Bills anti-commandeerig Arkansas Constitution Executive Orders HB1637 Amanda Bowers Now in Effect: Convoluted Arkansas Law That Might End State Enforcement of Some Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-convoluted-arkansas-law-that-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4f6acade-cd6b-e190-efab-7f0a4399c299 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:06:13 +0000 <p>much of the language in the new law is extremely convoluted and could leave a loophole for law enforcement officers to continue enforcing federal gun control.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-convoluted-arkansas-law-that-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/">Now in Effect: Convoluted Arkansas Law That Might End State Enforcement of Some Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>LITTLE ROCK</strong>, Ark. (July. 28, 2021) – Today, an Arkansas law that <strong>could maybe possibly</strong> prohibit enforcement of some future federal gun control went into effect. But some convoluted language in the bill makes it uncertain if it will actually play out that way in practice.<span id="more-37788"></span></p> <p>In April, the Senate voted to override a Gov. Asa Hutchinson <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/26/arkansas-governor-vetoes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-override-effort-underway/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto of a bill</a> that would have banned the state from participating in the enforcement of a wide range of federal gun control acts dating back to 1934. But the House passed a motion by a voice vote to postpone the override, in effect allowing the veto to stand. The House then considered several alternative bills.</p> <p>Ultimately, the House settled on House Bill 1957 (<a href="https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=HB1957&amp;chamber=House&amp;ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1957</a>) sponsored by Rep. Jeff Wardlaw and Sen. Missy Irvin (R). The intent of the law is to ban state enforcement of some future federal gun control. HB1957 prohibits public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions from “enforcing or assisting federal agencies or officers in the enforcement of any federal statute, executive order, or federal agency directive that conflicts with Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, or any Arkansas law.”</p> <p>The law also declares a “federal ban” null and void in the state of Arkansas. A federal ban is broadly defined as “a federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that is enacted, adopted, or becomes effective on or after January 1, 2021, that infringes upon, calls into question, or prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, any magazine or other ammunition feeding device, or other firearm accessory.”</p> <p>The law also includes a list of federal actions that would qualify as “a federal ban.”</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>However, much of the language in the new law is extremely convoluted and could leave a loophole for law enforcement officers to continue enforcing federal gun control. It specifically bars state and local agents from enforcing acts that “conflict with Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, or any Arkansas law.”</p> <p>Law enforcement lobby groups are likely to promote the view that “it’s not the job of a law enforcement officer to determine what’s constitutional or not.” And in practice, that means law enforcement agents can plausibly continue helping in the enforcement of all federal gun control in Arkansas until a court tells them to do otherwise.</p> <p>It appears that the law intends to link the definition of a “federal ban” with acts state and local agents would be prohibited from enforcing. But the term “federal ban” does not appear in the clause prohibiting enforcement. The most generous reading of the law would prohibit state and local officials from enforcing any federal action included in the definition of a federal ban. But the tangled language makes it difficult to determine how the law will be interpreted in practice. If history tells us anything, cops will interpret as loosely as they can in order to continue working with their &#8220;federal partners&#8221; to enforce any and all federal gun control.</p> <p>A leading grassroots activist in Arkansas called the bill “smoke and mirrors.”</p> <p>The House passed HB197 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1957/id/1063465" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 75-19 vote</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1957/id/1064364" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approved the measure 26-6</a>. Gov. Hutchinson signed the bill into law and it went into effed on July 28.</p> <p>The fact Hutchinson signed the bill is another indication that it might not have any real teeth, given that he caved to intense law enforcement opposition and vetoed the much stronger Senate Bill 298. In his <a href="https://wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/news/documents/2021/04/23/SB298_Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto letter</a>, Hutchinson called the partnership between state and federal law enforcement “crucial.” You can get more details on the legislation Hutchinson vetoed <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-passes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HERE</a>.</p> <p><strong>POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p><strong>If the bill results in non-enforcement of some federal action</strong>, it would be an effective way to stop some future federal gun control in Arkansas. The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Arkansas can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-convoluted-arkansas-law-that-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/">Now in Effect: Convoluted Arkansas Law That Might End State Enforcement of Some Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Arkansas Federal Gun Control HB1957 SB298 Mike Maharrey Void! https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/void/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5ffb7987-eb6d-99b7-c824-ec2f09169d2a Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:07:06 +0000 <p>Many people in the founding generation said that any federal act no authorized by the Constitution is "void." That means we should treat it just like the company treats a voided warranty - as if it didn't exist.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/void/">Void!</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>What happens when you do something that voids your warranty? The company no longer honors it. The warranty is no longer in effect. It is unenforcible.</p> <p>Many people in the founding generation said that any federal act no authorized by the Constitution is &#8220;void.&#8221; That means we should treat it just like the company treats a voided warranty &#8211; as if it didn&#8217;t exist.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Acts against the constitution are VOID. It&#39;s time to treat them that way too. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nullify?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nullify</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://t.co/WeMx2jl1ef">pic.twitter.com/WeMx2jl1ef</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1419690939874877444?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2021</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/nullification-overview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nullification</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/nullification-wasnt-invented-by-thomas-jefferson/">Nullification Wasn’t Invented by Thomas Jefferson</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/kentucky-resolutions-of-1798/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kentucky Resolutions of 1798</a></p> <p><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-supremacy-clause/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Supremacy Clause</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/void/">Void!</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Constitution Nullification Void Mike Maharrey Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:602a1d4c-e92c-eec2-3999-cb8a2d2aa4dc Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:12:17 +0000 <p>the first proposed Biden budget more than doubles funding for a federal program that doles out money to state and local police departments to hire law enforcement officers.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/">Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>Remember when Democrats were going to defund the police?</p> <p>Not so much.</p> <p>In fact, the first proposed Biden budget more than doubles funding for a federal program that doles out money to state and local police departments to hire law enforcement officers.<span id="more-36484"></span></p> <p>The <a href="https://cops.usdoj.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Office of Community Oriented Policing Services</a> (COPS Office) is a federal welfare program that helps fund state and local police agencies with money for officer hiring and retention. According to the agency website, “The COPS Office awards grants to hire community policing professionals, develop and test innovative policing strategies, and provide training and technical assistance to community members, local government leaders, and all levels of law enforcement.&#8221; Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $14 billion to help advance community policing.</p> <p>The Trump administration boosted funding for the COPS hiring program by 9.5 percent from $137 million to $150 million during his first term. Trump increased funding moderately each of the next three years with the program receiving $157 million in his final year.</p> <p>If Trump was known as the &#8220;thin blue line&#8221; president, Biden is going for thick blue entire sheet of paper. He  wants to boost COPS spending by 147.1 percent to $388 million.</p> <p>COPS money comes will <a href="https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2020AwardDocs/chp/FY20_Relentless_Pursuit_Fact_Sheet.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">all kinds of strings attached</a>. For instance, in 2020, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-61-million-awards-support-efforts-combat-violent-crime-seven-us?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the DOJ announced $51 million in federal grant money</a> through the COPS program to hire 214 sworn law enforcement officers for state and local law enforcement task forces in the cities under the program. The program effectively incentivized local police in these cities to align their efforts with federal policing priorities. Officers assigned to the ORP were tasked to work in coordination with the U.S. Attorneys Office and “other relevant federal agencies” to investigate targets involved in “gang, drug trafficking and other violent crime-related issues.”</p> <blockquote><p>“The COPS Office expects that officers deployed to ORP task force operations as a result of CHP funding will spend all or most of their time performing task force–related activities.”</p></blockquote> <p>Under the guidelines for the ORP money, “The recipients of the funding will deploy existing veteran officers to task force duties and use the CHP funding to hire new recruits to backfill those positions, as practical.”</p> <p>Despite branding this as a program to battle violent crime, it is really nothing but an extension of the unconstitutional war on drugs. In effect, the ORP money is being used to incentivize police departments in these cities to put their veteran officers on the front lines of the war on drugs and leave everyday policing in the community to rookies. Federal priorities will come first whether or not they are really those that would most benefit local residents or not.</p> <p>Through incentives created by federal funding and the proliferation of joint task forces that combine state, local and federal policing, the federal government has effectively created a national police force.</p> <p>The federal government was never intended to exercise “police powers” in the first place. The Constitution only defines four federal crimes – treason, piracies and felonies committed on the high Seas, counterfeiting, and crimes against the law of nations. The federal government also has criminal jurisdiction within Washington D.C. and its other enclaves.</p> <p>The creation of every other federal crime violates the Constitution.</p> <p>In other words, virtually the entire federal law enforcement apparatus is unconstitutional.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the federal government is developing a national police force that operates outside of any jurisdictional, legal or constitutional boundaries. Joint task forces are a threat to liberty. States should simply withdraw.</p> <p>Despite all of the &#8220;defund the police&#8221; talk coming from Democrats, Biden clearly wants to expand this national police state. After all, if you really want to understand priorities, follow the money.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/">Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Federal Funding Police federal-funding Joe Biden Police State Mike Maharrey Oakland Ordinance Sets the Stage to Limit Local Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/oakland-ordinance-sets-the-stage-to-limit-local-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:70cd2019-6fa2-6a4f-0a3d-29c985f763d6 Mon, 26 Jul 2021 19:11:40 +0000 <p>Under the law, police in the city won't be able to obtain or use military equipment without city council approval. Law enforcement must submit a detailed Controlled Equipment Impact Report and a Controlled Equipment Use Policy to the Oakland Police Commission before obtaining or using "controlled" equipment. The police commission will make recommendations to the council before that body votes to approve or prohibit the equipment.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/oakland-ordinance-sets-the-stage-to-limit-local-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">Oakland Ordinance Sets the Stage to Limit Local Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OAKLAND</strong>, Calif. (July 26, 2021) &#8211; Earlier this month. the Oakland City Council gave final approval to an ordinance that takes the first step toward limiting the impact of federal programs that militarize local police.<span id="more-37796"></span></p> <p>Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan introduced the military equipment along with council members Noel Gallo and Dan Kalb. Under the law, police in the city won&#8217;t be able to obtain or use military equipment without city council approval. Law enforcement must submit a detailed Controlled Equipment Impact Report and a Controlled Equipment Use Policy to the Oakland Police Commission before obtaining or using &#8220;controlled&#8221; equipment. The police commission will make recommendations to the council before that body votes to approve or prohibit the equipment.</p> <p>The definition of &#8220;controlled equipment&#8221; includes a long list of specific military gear including MRAPs, tracked vehicles, weapon-bearing aircraft, firearms of .50 caliber or greater, specialized firearms as defined by California law, weapons designed for hand-to-hand combat (excluding batons), explosives (including flash-bangs), and any other &#8220;military equipment.&#8221;</p> <p>The Oakland City Council unanimously approved the ordinance in June and it went into effect after a second vote on July 6.</p> <p>The ordinance applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> <p>While passage of this ordinance won’t end the militarization of Oakland law enforcement, it will make it more difficult for police in the county to obtain such weapons and equipment, establishes a high level of transparency, and sets the stage for further limits in the future.</p> <p>Police departments often obtain military and surveillance equipment from the federal government in complete secrecy. Requiring public disclosure of all requests for military gear and requiring council approval will bring the process into the open and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to stop the acquisition through their local representatives.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/war-on-liberty-an-overview-of-federal-programs-that-militarize-and-nationalize-local-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police can get military-grade weapons through a number of federal programs</a>, including the 1033 program, and via the Department of Homeland Security through 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. Biden reinstituted the Obama policy, but it was nothing more than window-dressing. In practice, the Obama EO did little to stem the flow of military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.</p> <p>Even with the Obama-era limits back in place, the 1033 program will remain essentially intact. Military gear will continue to pour into local police agencies, just as it did when Obama was in the White House.</p> <p>Even if you see the Obama/Biden limits as a positive, the multiple federal flip-flops underscore the importance of putting limits on police militarization at the state and local level. Federal policy tends to change depending on the party in power. Whatever limits Biden imposes through executive order can be undone with a stroke of the next president’s pen. The only way to effectively end police militarization for good is permanently withdrawing the state from these federal programs.</p> <p>The new ordinance will limit participation in federal police militarization programs and create a framework of transparency. It will 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. The passage of this ordinance takes the first step toward limiting police militarization in Oakland.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/oakland-ordinance-sets-the-stage-to-limit-local-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">Oakland Ordinance Sets the Stage to Limit Local Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police 1033 Program California Federal Militarization of Police Oakland Police-State Mike Maharrey Infinite‌ ‌and‌ ‌Incomprehensible:‌ ‌Antifederalist‌ ‌Brutus‌ ‌No.‌ ‌5‌ https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/infinite%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cand%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cincomprehensible%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cantifederalist%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cbrutus%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cno-%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8c5%e2%80%8c/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c201b28b-bffa-f0dd-f17d-dc26bdc2ee22 Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:36:35 +0000 <p>Rather than a general government with few and defined powers, in his 5th essay, Antifederalist Brutus warned that a combination of taxing power and the necessary and proper clause would lead to a government with nearly infinite and incomprehensible power.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/infinite%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cand%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cincomprehensible%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cantifederalist%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cbrutus%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cno-%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8c5%e2%80%8c/">Infinite‌ ‌and‌ ‌Incomprehensible:‌ ‌Antifederalist‌ ‌Brutus‌ ‌No.‌ ‌5‌</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Rather than a general government with few and defined powers, in his 5th essay, Antifederalist Brutus warned that a combination of taxing power and the necessary and proper clause would lead to a government with nearly infinite and incomprehensible power.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 26, 2021<span id="more-37798"></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 loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/62NDAJJuikY?start=68" title="YouTube video player" 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://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-iv/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus No. 4 (29 Nov 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/Samuel-Adams-Letter-24Oct1780.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams to James Warren (24 Oct 1780)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1906#Elliot_1314-02_124" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Old Abraham White &#8211; Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (16 Jan 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/nullify-the-police-state-no-knock-warrant-edition/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Episode: No-Knock Warrants</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/lee-empire-and-nation-letters-from-a-farmer" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Dickinson &#8211; Letter VI from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767) </a></p> <p><a href="https://libertas.org/justice-and-due-process/should-home-invasions-for-drugs-continue/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Libertas &#8211; Utah &#8211; drug war</a></p> <p><a href="https://kypolicy.org/banning-no-knock-warrants-first-step-in-addressing-police-violence-demilitarization/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Data &#8211; KY center for economic policy</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Letters_of_Richard_Henry_Lee/2DpLAAAAYAAJ" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Henry Lee to his nephew Thomas Shippen (21 Sept 1791)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/police-are-lying-about-no-knock-warrants/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Amanda Bowers &#8211; Police Are Lying About “No-Knock” Warrants </a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/posts/2911034909163225" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FOP Post</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/posts/2924406684492714" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FOP Again</a></p> <p><a href="https://archive.is/UCXJo" rel="noopener" target="_blank">KY 2020</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Texas</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1907#Elliot_1314-03_149" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Patrick Henry (5 June 1788)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072321:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition-60faf22f6d4b9cc230b20e2a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072321:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1265346079615254528" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/678798e4-f22f-4643-ab23-a264c1b38ec0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/6WI0QdVYyR/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/7hP56xFtIx1c/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/463472ab-74ce-4bdb-b317-a1110022a55f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRrUybmrl7x/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/0036b8b0-8f21-44ea-b633-41f50291a0fa" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1418609446255665154" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60faf47d9af9cd568ad75d23" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6824385667674587136/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</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></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/infinite%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cand%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cincomprehensible%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cantifederalist%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cbrutus%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cno-%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8c5%e2%80%8c/">Infinite‌ ‌and‌ ‌Incomprehensible:‌ ‌Antifederalist‌ ‌Brutus‌ ‌No.‌ ‌5‌</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Brutus Necessary and Proper Clause Path to Liberty Antifederalist Brutus No 5 Taxing Power Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 27:16 Rather than a general government with few and defined powers, in his 5th essay, Antifederalist Brutus warned that a combination of taxing power and the necessary and proper clause would lead to a government with nearly infinite and incomprehensible power. Rather than a general government with few and defined powers, in his 5th essay, Antifederalist Brutus warned that a combination of taxing power and the necessary and proper clause would lead to a government with nearly infinite and incomprehensible power. We Don’t Really Need a “Debt Ceiling” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/we-dont-really-need-a-debt-ceiling/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fa8d3db7-4ef8-f16e-f922-6a1ff38e5812 Sun, 25 Jul 2021 21:20:35 +0000 <p>Brace yourself. We're in for another "debt ceiling" battle on Capitol Hill. But we don't even really need a borrowing ceiling. There's one built into the Constitution. It's the enumerated powers. They would naturally limit borrowing and spending.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/we-dont-really-need-a-debt-ceiling/">We Don’t Really Need a “Debt Ceiling”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Brace yourself. We&#8217;re in for another &#8220;debt ceiling&#8221; battle on Capitol Hill. But we don&#8217;t even really need a borrowing ceiling. There&#8217;s one built into the Constitution. It&#8217;s the enumerated powers. They would naturally limit borrowing and spending.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">If they followed the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Constitution</a>, this fake <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/debtceiling?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#debtceiling</a> debate would never even happen. But yet, here we are. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/politicians?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#politicians</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://t.co/IXRGXYRGdN">pic.twitter.com/IXRGXYRGdN</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1418665052912029703?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 23, 2021</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/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">30 Enumerated Powers</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/its-gotta-be-on-the-list/">It’s Gotta Be on the List!</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/10th-amendment-the-enumerated-powers-of-states/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">10th Amendment: The Enumerated Powers of States</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/we-dont-really-need-a-debt-ceiling/">We Don’t Really Need a “Debt Ceiling”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Current Events Federal Funding Maharrey Minute Debt Ceiling Enumerated Powers government spending Mike Maharrey Now in Effect: Washington Law Prohibits No-Knock Warrants and Limits Federal Militarization of Police https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-washington-law-prohibits-no-knock-warrants-and-limits-federal-militarization-of-police/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:85046a5e-a26f-e7dc-fd60-3dce147f2084 Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:27:18 +0000 <p>The new law makes numerous policing reforms and includes provisions to prohibit no-knock warrants and limit the type of military equipment police can obtain through federal programs.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-washington-law-prohibits-no-knock-warrants-and-limits-federal-militarization-of-police/">Now in Effect: Washington Law Prohibits No-Knock Warrants and Limits Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OLYMPIA</strong>, Wash. (July 25, 2021) –  Today, a law goes into effect in Washington state that prohibits no-knock warrants and puts limits on state and local law enforcement agencies’ ability to acquire certain military equipment from federal programs.<span id="more-37730"></span><span id="more-37357"></span></p> <p>Rep. Jesse Johnson (D-Federal Way) filed House Bill 1054 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/HB1054/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1054</a>) in January. The new law makes numerous policing reforms and includes provisions to prohibit no-knock warrants and limit the type of military equipment police can obtain through federal programs.</p> <p>The House <a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/rollcall/HB1054/id/1061969" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approved the final version of HB1054 by a 55-42 vote</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/rollcall/HB1054/id/1061693" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed the bill 28-20.</a> With Gov. Jay Inslee&#8217;s signature, the law went into effect on July 25.</p> <p><strong>POLICE MILITARIZATION</strong></p> <p>The new law prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring or using “military equipment.” The law defines the following as “military equipment.”</p> <ul> <li>firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater</li> <li>machine guns</li> <li>armed helicopters</li> <li>armed or armored drones</li> <li>armed vessels</li> <li>armed vehicles</li> <li>armed aircraft</li> <li>tanks</li> <li>long-range acoustic hailing devices</li> <li>rockets</li> <li>rocket launchers</li> <li>bayonets</li> <li>grenades</li> <li>missiles</li> <li>directed energy systems</li> <li>electromagnetic spectrum weapons</li> </ul> <p>A ban on mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) in the original House version was amended out of the bill in the Senate.</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>Any law enforcement agency in possession of military equipment as of the effective date of the law must return the equipment to the federal agency from which it was acquired, or destroy the equipment by December 31, 2022.</p> <p>While the enactment of HB1054 will not end the militarization of local cops, it will keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers.</p> <p><strong>Federal Surplus and Grant Money</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/war-on-liberty-an-overview-of-federal-programs-that-militarize-and-nationalize-local-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police can get military-grade weapons through a number of federal programs</a>, including the 1033 program, and via the Department of Homeland Security through 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. Biden will reportedly reinstitute the Obama policy, but it was nothing more than window-dressing. In practice, the Obama EO did little to stem the flow of military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.</p> <p>Even with the Obama-era limits back in place, the 1033 program will remain essentially intact. Military gear will continue to pour into local police agencies, just as it did when Obama was in the White House.</p> <p>Even if you see the Obama/Biden limits as a positive, the multiple federal flip-flops underscore the importance of putting limits on police militarization at the state and local level. Federal policy tends to change depending on the party in power. Whatever limits Biden imposes through executive order can be undone with a stroke of the next president’s pen. The only way to effectively end police militarization for good is permanently withdrawing the state from these federal programs.</p> <p>The enactment of HB1054 limits Washington’s participation in federal police militarization programs.</p> <p><b>Command and Control</b></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, they become less likely to cooperate with the feds, and it also removes incentives for partnerships. The enactment of HB1054 takes a first step toward limiting police militarization in Washington State.</p> <p><strong>NO-KNOCK WARRANTS</strong></p> <p>Another provision in HB1054 effectively bans “no-knock” warrants. Under the law, police are prohibited from seeking and courts cannot issue a search or arrest warrant granting an express exception to the requirement for the officer to provide notice of his or her office and purpose when executing the warrant. Police can only enter a building “if, after notice of his or her office and purpose, he or she be refused admittance.”</p> <p>The enactment of HB1054 effectively nullifies and makes irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.</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 “exigent circumstance” 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, “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.”</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>“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ 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.” [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even 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 they technically gathered it illegally.</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 Court 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’t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion,</p> <p><strong>OTHER REFORMS</strong></p> <p>HB1054  bans law enforcement officers from using “chokeholds.” It also prohibits the use of tear gas “unless necessary to alleviate a present risk of serious harm posed by (a) Riot inside a correctional, jail, or detention facility; (b) barricaded subject; or (c) hostage situation.” Other provisions in the legislation institute rules for police vehicular chases.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-washington-law-prohibits-no-knock-warrants-and-limits-federal-militarization-of-police/">Now in Effect: Washington Law Prohibits No-Knock Warrants and Limits Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police State Bills 1033 Program HB1054 No Knock Warrants Police Militarization Washington Amanda Bowers How establishment conservatives betray the Second Amendment https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/how-establishment-conservatives-betray-the-second-amendment/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:95a0f4b7-0e9d-3c14-9eac-0c5c69a82866 Sat, 24 Jul 2021 14:09:50 +0000 <p>NICS viewed as a “common sense” form of gun control that supposedly stops crime and keeps us “safe.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/how-establishment-conservatives-betray-the-second-amendment/">How establishment conservatives betray the Second Amendment</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Having been involved in politics for over a decade, I’ve developed a number of pet peeves.</p> <p>Honestly, I could write a 10,000 word email listing off every single one of those annoyances and why they make me livid.<span id="more-37792"></span></p> <p>But then I know you’d fall asleep or unsubscribe from this list. Hehe.</p> <p>Brevity has become a fixture of my approach to things in recent times and I intend on keeping it that way.</p> <p>Anyways, let’s dig into one thing that gets me REALLY worked up when it comes to how some folks on the supposed “Right” approach politics.</p> <p>You see, there’s a lot of these cats who claim to be pro-Second Amendment and position themselves as friends to gun owners.</p> <p>To that I ask, “ok….but are you willing to repeal federal gun control laws?“</p> <p>That’s when things start to get uncomfortable….</p> <p>Most of the time I’ll receive very incoherent answers.</p> <p>Sometimes I’ll get the dreaded “I support the Second Amendment but….” and later proceed to justify some form of gun control that’s on the books.</p> <p>To quote the great Michael Malice “Anything preceding &#8216;but&#8217; in a political statement can be ignored.”</p> <p>Keep this in mind when dealing with politicos along your journey.</p> <p>Back to gun control that certain figures on the Right support&#8230;</p> <p>The most common form of gun control that your normie conservative is in favor of is the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).</p> <p>It’s viewed as a “common sense” form of gun control that supposedly stops crime and keeps us “safe.”</p> <p>Here are some inconvenient facts for the conservative counter-signalers:</p> <p>Crime was already falling before the NICS system came into effect in 1998.</p> <p>This has been a secular trend that started in the late 1970s-early 1980s. Peep John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crimes for more deets.</p> <p>Also Last time I checked there’s nowhere in the constitution that allows for the creation of the NICS system.<br /> ​<br /> And last but certainly not least, NICS is a bureaucratic monstrosity that is notorious for mixing and matching lawful citizen’s information with that of criminals, thus depriving many otherwise lawful Americans of their right to bear arms.</p> <p>This entire system needs to be flushed down the toilet.</p> <p>I make the case for conservatives to take stronger stances against NICS in a recent post for Liberty Conservative News.</p> <p>​<a href="https://click.convertkit-mail.com/5qu6l7480ku7hdw08pu6/z2hghnhooplp0xap/aHR0cHM6Ly9saWJlcnR5Y29uc2VydmF0aXZlbmV3cy5jb20vc2hvdWxkLWd1bi1vd25lcnMtcmVjb25zaWRlci1kZWZlbmRpbmctdGhlLWZlZGVyYWwtYmFja2dyb3VuZC1jaGVjay1zeXN0ZW0v" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://libertyconservativenews.com/should-gun-owners-reconsider-defending-the-federal-background-check-system/</a>​</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/how-establishment-conservatives-betray-the-second-amendment/">How establishment conservatives betray the Second Amendment</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Republocrats Right to Keep and Bear Arms 2nd Amendment NICS Republicans José Alberto Niño Neither Necessary nor Proper https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/24/neither-necessary-nor-proper/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:a5f28820-6334-7a2b-e7cc-55fa866adbe7 Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:18:39 +0000 <p>The federal government’s war on marijuana (and all other drugs) is neither necessary in a free society nor proper under the Constitution.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/24/neither-necessary-nor-proper/">Neither Necessary nor Proper</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>It was sixteen years ago last month that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><i>Gonzales v. Raich</i></a> (2005), ruled that the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) did not exceed the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use.<span id="more-36489"></span></p> <p>In this case, Angel Raich and another defendant used marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with California’s 1996 Compassionate Use Act. The federal government objected, based on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance with “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and “a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.” As a consequence, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized and destroyed a number of cannabis plants.</p> <p>The defendants sued the federal government in 2002, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. A federal district court ruled against the defendants. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ruled that the CSA was unconstitutional as it applied to <i>intrastate</i> medical marijuana. The government appealed the decision, and the case was argued before the Supreme Court in November of 2004. The 6-3 opinion, which was delivered by Justice Stevens, with Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas dissenting, effectively says that the federal government has the authority to prohibit marijuana possession and use for any and all purposes.</p> <p>In his brilliant dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made several key points about the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and federalism:</p> <blockquote><p>Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.</p> <p>Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.</p> <p>Even assuming the CSA’s ban on locally cultivated and consumed marijuana is “necessary,” that does not mean it is also “proper.” The means selected by Congress to regulate interstate commerce cannot be “prohibited” by, or inconsistent with the “letter and spirit” of, the Constitution.</p> <p>One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States.</p> <p>Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent.</p></blockquote> <p>So, how does the <i>Gonzales v. Raich</i> case from 2005 relate to today?</p> <p>At the end of last month, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of <i>Standing Akimbo v. United States</i>, No. 19-1049 (10th Cir. 2020). This means that the decision of the Tenth Circuit will stand.</p> <p>Here is the official summary of the case from <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/19-1049/19-1049-2020-04-07.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Justia</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>The IRS conducted a civil audit of Peter Hermes, Kevin Desilet, Samantha Murphy, and John Murphy (collectively, the “Taxpayers”) to verify their tax liabilities for their medical- marijuana dispensary, Standing Akimbo, LLC. The IRS was investigating whether the Taxpayers had taken improper deductions for business expenses arising from a “trade or business” that “consists of trafficking in controlled substances.” Claiming to fear criminal prosecution, the Taxpayers declined to provide the audit information to the IRS. This left the IRS to seek the information elsewhere—it issued four summonses for plant reports, gross-sales reports and license information to the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division (the “Enforcement Division”), which is the state entity responsible for regulating licensed marijuana sales. In Colorado federal district court, the Taxpayers filed a petition to quash the summonses. The government moved to dismiss the petition and to enforce the summonses. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and ordered the summonses enforced. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the Taxpayers failed to overcome the IRS’ showing of good faith, and failed to establish that enforcing the summonses would constitute an abuse of process.</p></blockquote> <p>So once again we have a case regarding marijuana before the Supreme Court. And once again, it is Justice Clarence Thomas who questions the federal government’s prohibition of marijuana. In his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-645_9p6b.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> for the Ccourt denying the petition for a writ of certiorari, he further explains the tax issue at the heart of the case:</p> <blockquote><p>At issue here is a provision of the Tax Code that allows most businesses to calculate their taxable income by subtracting from their gross revenue the cost of goods sold and other ordinary and necessary business expenses, such as rent and employee salaries. … But because of a public-policy provision in the Tax Code, companies that deal in controlled substances prohibited by federal law may subtract only the cost of goods sold, not the other ordinary and necessary business expenses. . . .… Under this rule, a business that is still in the red after it pays its workers and keeps the lights on might nonetheless owe substantial federal income tax.</p></blockquote> <p>Five times in the statement, Justice Thomas references the <i>Raich</i> case:</p> <blockquote><p>Sixteen years ago, this Court held that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce authorized  it “to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana” (citing <i>Raich</i>).</p> <p>Whatever the merits of <i>Raich</i> when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning.</p> <p>Though federal law still flatly forbids the intra-state possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana, . . .… the Government, post-<i>Raich</i>, has sent mixed signals on its views.</p> <p>The Federal Government’s current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government’s blanket prohibition in <i>Raich</i>.</p> <p>If the Government is now content to allow States to act “as laboratories” “‘and try novel social and economic experiments’” then it might no longer have authority to intrude on “[t]he States’ core police powers . . . to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens” (citing <i>Raich</i>).</p></blockquote> <p>Justice Thomas also pointed out the federal government’s contradictory approach to the legality of marijuana:</p> <blockquote><p>Once comprehensive, the Federal Government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.</p> <p>In 2009 and 2013, the Department of Justice issued memorandums outlining a policy against intruding on state legalization schemes or prosecuting certain individuals who comply with state law. In 2009, Congress enabled Washington D. C.’s government to decriminalize medical marijuana under local ordinance. Moreover, in every fiscal year since 2015, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice from “spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their own medical marijuana laws.”</p> <p>Given all these developments, one can certainly under-stand why an ordinary person might think that the Federal Government has retreated from its once-absolute ban on marijuana. . . . … One can also perhaps understand why business owners in Colorado, like petitioners, may think that their intrastate marijuana operations will be treated like any other enterprise that is legal under state law.</p> <p>A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government’s piecemeal approach.</p></blockquote> <p>Justice Thomas’ use of the words “necessary” and “proper” is a deliberate reference to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution (art. I, sec. 8, para. 18), which states that the Congress shall have the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The question at issue in the <i>Raich</i> decision was whether this clause included “the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.”</p> <p>So then, since 36 states have legalized the medical use of marijuana (with regulations), 27 states have decriminalized the possession of marijuana (in small amounts), 18 states have legalized the recreational marijuana legal in 18 states (with restrictions), and the District of Columbia has done all three things, what are the chances that the federal government will finally leave marijuana legislation up to the states? And eEspecially since marijuana is only fully illegal in only five states (Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wyoming), and “a recent Quinnipiac University <a href="https://reason.com/2021/05/28/do-democrats-realize-they-need-republican-support-to-legalize-marijuana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">poll</a> found that 69 percent of Americans, including 78 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of Republicans, support marijuana legalization.”</p> <p>House Democrats have once again introduced the MORE ACT, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021 (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617/text" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H.R.3617</a>) “to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.” Senate Majority Leader <a href="https://reason.com/2021/05/28/do-democrats-realize-they-need-republican-support-to-legalize-marijuana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chuck Schumer</a> (D–N.Y.) supposedly plans to soon introduce similar legislation.</p> <p>The similar MORE Act of 2019 (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3884" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H.R.3884</a>) actually passed the House on party lines at the end of 2019, but was never voted on in the Senate.</p> <p>Like the previous bill, the new incarnation contains some provisions that <a href="https://reason.com/2021/05/28/do-democrats-realize-they-need-republican-support-to-legalize-marijuana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Republicans</a> will ostensibly find objectionable—like a 5 percent federal excise tax on cannabis products, rising to 8 percent after four years, that would be used in part to fund a “‘Community Reinvestment Grant Program’ aimed at subsidizing ‘services for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs,’ including job training, reentry services, legal aid, literacy programs, youth recreation and mentoring programs, and health education” and pay for “substance use disorder services.” I suspect, however, that the real reason for GOP opposition is that <a href="https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/republican-politicians-are-incorrigible-drug-warriors/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Republicans</a> are incorrigible drug warriors.</p> <p>The days of marijuana prohibition—at least on the federal level—are numbered. The federal government’s war on marijuana (and all other drugs) is neither necessary in a free society nor proper under the Constitution.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/24/neither-necessary-nor-proper/">Neither Necessary nor Proper</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Court Cases Drug War History Cannabis Gonzales v Raich Marihuana Tax Act marijuana Prohibition war-on-drugs Laurence M. Vance They’re Lying: No-Knock Warrant Edition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:601c1f9b-f456-6c52-1604-3ce21dafdc7b Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:02:11 +0000 <p>We were warned. Don’t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty. Yet some people who are on board with that, have their own exception - police. But how they use no-knock warrants - and what they claim they use them for - is just more proof that they shouldn’t be trusted either.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition/">They’re Lying: No-Knock Warrant Edition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>We were warned. Don’t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty. Yet some people who are on board with that, have their own exception &#8211; police. But how they use no-knock warrants &#8211; and what they claim they use them for &#8211; is just more proof that they shouldn’t be trusted either.</p> <p>Path to Liberty. Fast Friday Edition: July 23, 2021 <span id="more-37783"></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 loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/pJGxr14icFk" title="YouTube video player" 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://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-iv/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus No. 4 (29 Nov 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/Samuel-Adams-Letter-24Oct1780.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams to James Warren (24 Oct 1780)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1906#Elliot_1314-02_124" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Old Abraham White &#8211; Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (16 Jan 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/nullify-the-police-state-no-knock-warrant-edition/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Episode: No-Knock Warrants</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/lee-empire-and-nation-letters-from-a-farmer" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Dickinson &#8211; Letter VI from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767) </a></p> <p><a href="https://libertas.org/justice-and-due-process/should-home-invasions-for-drugs-continue/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Libertas &#8211; Utah &#8211; drug war</a></p> <p><a href="https://kypolicy.org/banning-no-knock-warrants-first-step-in-addressing-police-violence-demilitarization/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Data &#8211; KY center for economic policy</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Letters_of_Richard_Henry_Lee/2DpLAAAAYAAJ" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Henry Lee to his nephew Thomas Shippen (21 Sept 1791)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/police-are-lying-about-no-knock-warrants/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Amanda Bowers &#8211; Police Are Lying About “No-Knock” Warrants </a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/posts/2911034909163225" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FOP Post</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/posts/2924406684492714" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FOP Again</a></p> <p><a href="https://archive.is/UCXJo" rel="noopener" target="_blank">KY 2020</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Texas</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1907#Elliot_1314-03_149" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Patrick Henry (5 June 1788)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072321:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition-60faf22f6d4b9cc230b20e2a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072321:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1265346079615254528" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/678798e4-f22f-4643-ab23-a264c1b38ec0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/6WI0QdVYyR/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/7hP56xFtIx1c/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/463472ab-74ce-4bdb-b317-a1110022a55f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRrUybmrl7x/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/0036b8b0-8f21-44ea-b633-41f50291a0fa" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1418609446255665154" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60faf47d9af9cd568ad75d23" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6824385667674587136/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</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></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition/">They’re Lying: No-Knock Warrant Edition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video No-Knock Warrants Path to Liberty Police Abraham White Brutus No Knock Warrants Patrick Henry Police-State Power Samuel Adams Trust Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 15:50 We were warned. Don’t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty. Yet some people who are on board with that, have their own exception - police. But how they use no-knock warrants - and what they claim they use them for - is just more proof that they ... We were warned. Don’t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty. Yet some people who are on board with that, have their own exception - police. But how they use no-knock warrants - and what they claim they use them for - is just more proof that they shouldn’t be trusted either.<br /> Some Things Never Change https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/some-things-never-change/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:404e35c0-ef7f-fae9-6ce2-973fa0a70c91 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:19:13 +0000 <p>Welcome to the new normal. Which is really an awful lot like the old normal.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/some-things-never-change/">Some Things Never Change</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>This month we have a variation on a theme &#8211; the U.S. government spends more money than it has and runs up another massive budget deficit. Some things never change.<span id="more-37709"></span></p> <p>In June, the US government ran another big deficit of $174.16 billion, continuing the trend of overspending and massive budget shortfalls.</p> <p>With three months remaining in fiscal 2021, the budget deficit stands at a staggering $2.24 trillion, according to <a href="https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0621.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">June Monthly Treasury Statement</a>.</p> <p>Despite the fact that the economy has opened back up and the pandemic has receded, for the time being, the U.S. government continues to run massive budget deficits month after month after month.</p> <p>Uncle Sam spent $623 billion in June, a 4.3 percent increase over May’s outlays. That’s over half a trillion dollars in federal spending in just one month. Total spending for fiscal 2021 now stands at $5.29 trillion. Spending is up 6 percent in fiscal 2021 compared to the same period last year.</p> <p>And you thought spending would go back to “normal” after the pandemic.</p> <p>Welcome to the new normal. Which is really an awful lot like the old normal.</p> <p>Republican partisan hacks will pin the blame on Joe Biden, but President Trump oversaw massive budget deficits as well. In fact, when <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/01/smoke-and-mirrors-the-greatest-economy-is-built-on-spending-and-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trump was bragging about the greatest economy in history</a>, his administration was running a <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/28/more-excuses-while-feds-run-biggest-deficit-in-seven-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">budget deficit of just a hair under $1 trillion</a>.</p> <p>The Treasury received $449 billion in June. Treasury receipts were bolstered by the late tax filing deadline this year.</p> <p>As of July 12, <a href="https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the national debt</a> stood at $28.49 trillion.</p> <p>According to <a href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the National Debt Clock</a>, the debt to GDP ratio is 128.23%. Despite the lack of concern in the mainstream, debt has consequences. <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/more-government-debt-means-less-economic-growth/">More government debt means less economic growth</a>. Studies have shown that a debt to GDP ratio of over 90% retards economic growth by about 30%. This throws cold water on the conventional “spend now, worry about the debt later” mantra, along with the frequent claim that “we can grow ourselves out of the debt” now popular on both sides of the aisle in DC.</p> <p>There is no sign that the federal government plans to rein in spending any time soon. Congress continues to wrangle over an infrastructure deal with a $2 trillion price tag. President Biden has also pitched “free” community college and childcare. This all piles on top of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/03/biden-borrow-and-spend-plan-builds-on-trump-legacy-and-makes-things-even-worse/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$6 trillion in spending packed into the proposed 2022 budget</a>.  Biden has pitched a number of corporate and individual tax increases to pay for the spending, but he’s already had to back off on some of the taxes due to political pressure. That means most of this borrowing and spending will continue to be paid for through an inflation tax that will hit us as the Federal Reserve monetizes this massive debt.  That means more bond purchases and more money printing.</p> <p>Currently, the average American doesn’t really feel the impact of federal spending. Taxes remain low (relatively speaking). The Treasury simply borrows the money and the central bank monetizes the debt. But borrowed money has to be paid back. You <em>will</em> pay the bill – whether through higher taxes down the road or the <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/the-inflation-tax-is-lowering-our-standard-of-living/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inflation tax</a> inherent in the Fed’s debt-monetization scheme. And in reality – both.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/some-things-never-change/">Some Things Never Change</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Debt Federal Funding budget deficit government spending National Debt Mike Maharrey Who Do You Think Is Going to “Come and Take It? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/who-do-you-think-is-going-to-come-and-take-it/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:88322343-ff1b-ed6b-0007-9a1ec9373028 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:16:49 +0000 <p>In the area I live, it's not unusual to see a vehicle with a "thin blue line" bumper sticker right next to a "come and take it" pro-gun bumper sticker. I always want to stop these people and ask, "Who the heck do you think is going to come and take it?"</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/who-do-you-think-is-going-to-come-and-take-it/">Who Do You Think Is Going to “Come and Take It?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>In the area I live, it&#8217;s not unusual to see a vehicle with a &#8220;thin blue line&#8221; bumper sticker right next to a &#8220;come and take it&#8221; pro-gun bumper sticker. I always want to stop these people and ask, &#8220;Who the heck do you think is going to come and take it?&#8221;</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Here&#39;s an ugly <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> a lot of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/conservatives?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#conservatives</a> haven&#39;t wrestled with: Cops are big opponents of the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/2ndAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#2ndAmendment</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/thinblueline?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#thinblueline</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/policestate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#policestate</a> <a href="https://t.co/9tov7xeIB7">pic.twitter.com/9tov7xeIB7</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1417944011780751360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 21, 2021</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 class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/26/arkansas-governor-vetoes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-override-effort-underway/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arkansas Governor Vetoes Bill to End State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control, Override Effort Underway</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/05/03/the-thin-blue-line-between-you-and-your-guns/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Thin Blue Line Between You and Your Guns</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/29/missouri-sheriffs-association-working-to-kill-2nd-amendment-preservation-act/">Missouri Sheriffs’ Association Working to Kill 2nd Amendment Preservation Act</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/who-do-you-think-is-going-to-come-and-take-it/">Who Do You Think Is Going to “Come and Take It?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Police Right to Keep and Bear Arms 2nd Amendment Constitutional Carry Police-State Thin Blue Line Mike Maharrey The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-la-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gun-rights/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d031ee28-ea72-41cf-4cb6-a164f505f916 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:05:03 +0000 <p>What the Times is essentially advocating is a law that prevents people from defending themselves against rapists and murderers.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-la-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gun-rights/">The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p class="p1">The <i>Los Angeles Times</i> had an editorial yesterday whose title pretty much says it all: “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-07-20/editorial-gun-laws-age-requirement-18-21">18-Year-Olds Shouldn’t Have the Right to Buy Guns</a>.” <span id="more-37779"></span></p> <p class="p1">So, let me see if I correctly understand the <i>Times</i>’s position. An 18-year-old woman is walking down a dark street at night. She is accosted by a much bigger, stronger man who violently grabs her. He is armed with a gun and threatens to kill her if she resists. She isn’t armed because of the <em>Times</em>‘s gun-control law that prohibits 18-year-olds, including women, from buying guns. He proceeds to tear her clothes off and rape her. Hoping that she won’t be killed, she submits to the rape.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">What the<em> Times</em> is essentially advocating is a law that prevents people from defending themselves against rapists and murderers. That 18-year-old woman might not be physically strong enough to resist that rapist, but with one Glock 19 that she pulls out of her purse, things are now equalized. Now it doesn’t matter how much bigger and stronger her rapist is. She can stop him from raping her with just one bullet fired into his abdomen.Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, in its editorial the <em>Times</em> failed to answer an important question: How is that 18-year-old woman supposed to defend herself against that rapist? <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">Why shouldn’t that 18-year-old woman have the right to defend herself against that rapist? Why should she be required to submit to the rape or else be murdered?</p> <p class="p1">The <i>Times</i> writes:</p> <blockquote> <p class="p3">True, the right to puff on cigarettes or drink alcohol is not written into the U.S. Constitution. But neither is a guarantee that the right to bear arms goes with being a particular age.</p> </blockquote> <p class="p3">Lamentably, those two sentences reflect a woeful lack of understanding of people’s rights and the Constitution. Rights don’t come from the Constitution. They preexist both the Constitution and the federal government that the Constitution called into existence.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p3">Remember: We just celebrated the Fourth of July, the day on which the Declaration of Independence was published in 1776. That document expressed the revolutionary truth that people’s rights come from nature and God, not from government and not from some document that calls government into existence.</p> <p class="p3">The Constitution never purported to establish people’s rights. It simply called into existence a government whose powers were limited to those few powers that were enumerated in the Constitution itself. If a power wasn’t enumerated, it could not be exercised.</p> <p class="p3">Extremely leery about this new government, the American people demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the citizenry from the federal government.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Contrary to popular belief, however, especially in the mainstream press, people’s rights also don’t come from the Bill of Rights. The First and Second Amendments, for example, do not give people the rights of free speech, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they prohibit the federal government from infringing on these fundamental rights.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p3">In fact, what many in the mainstream press fail to recognize is that if the Bill of Rights had never been enacted, people would still have the rights of free speech, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. That’s because people’s natural, God-given rights preexist government.</p> <p class="p3">Oddly, in its editorial the <i>Times</i> didn’t advocate a minimum age of 21 for military service. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the military permit 18-year-olds to handle guns and even orders them to use automatic weapons to kill people in faraway lands who have never committed any act of violence against the United States? Why does the <i>Times</i> trust those 18-year-olds with guns and not private 18-year-olds?</p> <p class="p3">Finally, in its editorial the <i>Times </i>unfortunately failed to call for an end to the root cause of much of the violence in American society — the much-vaunted war on drugs that unfortunately much of the mainstream press continues to support, notwithstanding the massive violence it has been producing for some 50 years. Rather than prohibit 18-year-olds from defending themselves, why not end this horrific government program and then see if gun violence is still a major problem in America?</p> <p><em>This article was originally published at the</em> <a href="https://www.fff.org/">Future of Freedom Foundation</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-la-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gun-rights/">The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Media Right to Keep and Bear Arms Los Angeles Times Mainstream Media Jacob Hornberger Time for Another Fake Debt Ceiling Fight https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/22/time-for-another-fake-debt-ceiling-fight/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:7dfd42d8-b537-8cdd-2e4b-bdb1ed8dbd5f Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:26:14 +0000 <p>Sadly, Congress doesn't even pay lip service to constitutional spending limits. Instead, it pays lip service to the fake debt ceiling.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/22/time-for-another-fake-debt-ceiling-fight/">Time for Another Fake Debt Ceiling Fight</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>The clock is ticking down to another U.S. debt ceiling battle. Of course, the debt ceiling is a fake and a fraud just like the debate surrounding it.<span id="more-36485"></span></p> <p>The debt ceiling theoretically &#8220;limits&#8221; government borrowing and spending. In reality, it does no such thing. And it wouldn&#8217;t be necessary if Congress simply stuck to its constitutionally delegated powers</p> <p>The Congressional Budget Office projects Uncle Sam will run out of money this fall, likely in October or November. “If that occurred, the government would be unable to pay its obligations fully, and it would delay making payments for its activities, default on its debt obligations, or both,” the CBO said in a statement.</p> <p>In 2019, Congress suspended the debt limit for two years. That suspension ends on July 31.</p> <p>Congress imposed the first debt ceiling in 1917. The Second Liberty Bond Act capped debt at $11.5 billion. This was supposed to put some kind of restraint on government borrowing. Of course, it didn’t. Every time the debt approaches the ceiling, Congress simply raises it. Between 1962 and 2011, lawmakers jacked up the debt “limit” 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service.</p> <p>In 2013, Congress came up with a new trick. Instead of raising the debt ceiling, it just suspended it. Congress set the last actual debt limit in 2014 with a built-in “auto-adjust.” The auto-adjust ended in March 2015 with the debt ceiling set at $18.1 trillion. Since then, Congress has suspended the debt ceiling three times.</p> <p>As of July 20, <a href="https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the national debt stood at $28.49 trillion</a>.</p> <p>When the current debt ceiling suspension ends on July 31, the U.S. government will no longer be able to borrow money. According to the CBO, it will be able to limp along until this fall using “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/yellen-says-prepared-launch-treasury-debt-limit-measures-2021-07-13/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">extraordinary measures</a>.” According to <em>Reuters,</em> these range from &#8220;halting the issuance of special securities to state and local governments to suspending the daily reinvestment of Treasury securities held by a government employee retirement fund and the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund.&#8221;</p> <p>It’s not completely clear how long the government can get by with accounting gimmicks. The CBO said it will depend on actual revenue collection and government spending, which can differ significantly from projections.</p> <p>Given that the debt ceiling has never meaningfully restrained borrowing and spending, why doesn’t Congress just scrap it altogether?</p> <p>I think there are two reasons.</p> <p>First, doing away with the debt ceiling would expose America’s fiscal irresponsibility to the world. We all know the federal government has <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/16/big-spenders-get-worse-every-year-the-history-of-growth-since-1940/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a bipartisan spending problem</a>. But the debt ceiling creates the illusion of responsibility. It’s like a magic trick. We all know it’s not really magic. It’s an illusion created by the magician. But we like to believe it’s magic. It makes us feel good. The debt ceiling is an illusion that allows Americans to feel like their “representatives” are acting responsibly.</p> <p>Second, the debt ceiling is ready-made for political theater. And there’s nothing politicians love more than political theater.</p> <p>Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already indicated that the Republicans aren’t going to vote for a debt ceiling increase because of the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/the-new-normal-is-now-6-trillion-in-federal-spending/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Democrats’ wild spending spree</a> that he called a “free-for-all for taxes and spending.”</p> <p>“I can’t imagine there will be a single Republican voting to raise the debt ceiling after what we’ve been experiencing,” McConnell said.</p> <p>It’s also a nice tool Republicans can use to get what they want out of the infrastructure deal Congress is currently haggling over.</p> <p>Of course, this is all rank hypocrisy. The Republicans borrowed and spent like drunken sailors during the Trump years and they approved the last debt ceiling suspension. Even today, Republicans don&#8217;t oppose the infrastructure bill. They just want it to be their kind of infrastructure bill.</p> <p>Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called McConnell’s remarks “shameless, cynical and totally political.” Because we all know the Democrats are just trying to do what’s best for America. No political motivation there at all!</p> <p>Failure to raise the debt limit would have “catastrophic economic consequences,” as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen put it.</p> <blockquote><p>It would be utterly unprecedented in American history for the United States government to default on its legal obligations.”</p></blockquote> <p>Yellen’s not wrong. And this is exactly why Congress will raise the debt ceiling – or simply kick the can down the road by suspending it again.</p> <p>In the meantime, brace yourself for hot political rhetoric and a lot of finger-pointing across the political aisle. We may even get another mythical government shutdown. But trust me, they won’t shut down any of the important things. The NSA will keep spying on you. The IRS will continue to collect taxes from you. The wars will rage on. And <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/01/congress-gets-paid-during-a-shutdown-while-staffers-dont-heres-why/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">members of Congress will continue to collect their paychecks</a>. There’s always money available for the things the government really wants to do.</p> <p>All of this wrangling over the debt ceiling wouldn&#8217;t even be necessary if Congress followed the Constitution. It features a built-in limit on spending &#8211; <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the enumerated powers</a>. Mos to the things that Congress borrows and spends for aren&#8217;t authorized by the Constitution.</p> <p>Consider the massive infrastructure bill currently under debate in Congress. The Constitution doesn&#8217;t delegate any power to Congress to spend money on &#8220;infrastructure.&#8221; In fact, President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817 – a plan that called for funding the construction of various roads, bridges, and canals throughout the country. In his <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto message</a>, Madison asserted the Constitution does not delegate power for such “internal improvements.”</p> <blockquote><p>The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.</p></blockquote> <p>What about the commerce clause, you might ask? Madison addressed this as well.</p> <blockquote><p>“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” cannot include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.</p></blockquote> <p>How about general welfare?</p> <p>Nope. Not according to Madison.</p> <blockquote><p>To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.</p></blockquote> <p>The Constitution puts strict limits on congressional spending. If Congress stayed within those limits, the government could easily pay for everything with the taxes it collects. It wouldn&#8217;t need to borrow billions of dollars every single month. And we wouldn&#8217;t need a fake debt ceiling to control borrowing.</p> <p>Sadly, Congress doesn&#8217;t even pay lip service to constitutional spending limits. Instead, it pays lip service to the fake debt ceiling.</p> <p>The whole debt ceiling debate is nothing but political gamesmanship. So, grab a chair. Pop some popcorn. And enjoy the show.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/22/time-for-another-fake-debt-ceiling-fight/">Time for Another Fake Debt Ceiling Fight</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Current Events Federal Funding Congress Debt Ceiling Government Spending Infrastructure James Madison national debt Mike Maharrey Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill to Eliminate State Conformity with IRS Section 280E for Marijuana Businesses https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-to-eliminate-state-conformity-with-irs-section-280e-for-marijuana-businesses/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d039f593-11c5-28ca-ca6a-ec8cf1a83c79 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:17:36 +0000 <p>His veto revolved around tax relief provisions for businesses impacted by city-wide or county-wide public health restrictions. He said that the section's "broad construction" would lead to several problems and create  “significant unintended consequences that could greatly harm localities.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-to-eliminate-state-conformity-with-irs-section-280e-for-marijuana-businesses/">Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill to Eliminate State Conformity with IRS Section 280E for Marijuana Businesses</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY,</strong> Mo. (July 21, 2021) –Missouri to Gov. Mike Parson vetoed a bill that would eliminate the state’s conformity with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 280E. The enactment of this law would have implemented a small but important state tax relief measure for medical marijuana businesses.<span id="more-37761"></span></p> <p>Federal tax Section 280E forbids businesses from deducting otherwise ordinary business expenses from gross income associated with the “trafficking” of Schedule I or II substances, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act. The IRS applies Section 280E to state-legal cannabis businesses. That means that marijuana growers, processors and sellers are unable to deduct expenses from their taxes that businesses in other sectors can write off. The only deductions that cannabis businesses can take are the costs of goods sold.</p> <p>Missouri policy currently reflects this federal approach.</p> <p>Sen. Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis) introduced Senate Bill 226 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/SB226/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB226</a>) in January to make several changes in the state tax code. Under one provision in the proposed law, licensed state cannabis firms would be allowed to take deductions on their Missouri taxes, just like any other business. Missouri Medical Cannabis Trade Association executive director Andrew Mullins <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/missouri-lawmakers-send-medical-marijuana-tax-deduction-bill-to-governor/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told <em>Marijuana Moment</em></a> the bill would simply “put medical cannabis businesses on a level playing field with all other small businesses across the state when it comes to taxes.”</p> <p>The enactment of SB226 would have removed a barrier facing Missourians who want to start marijuana businesses in the state by lowering their tax burden. This would further incentivize the market and allow it to expand despite continued federal prohibition efforts.</p> <p>Different versions of the bill were passed in the House and Senate. A conference committee hammered out a compromise that was approved on May 14. It went to Parson’s desk on May 25. On July 9, the Republican governor vetoed the bill.</p> <p>Parson didn&#8217;t mention the marijuana provisions in his <a href="https://governor.mo.gov/media/pdf/sb-226-veto-letter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto message</a>. His veto revolved around tax relief provisions for businesses impacted by city-wide or county-wide public health restrictions. He said that the section&#8217;s &#8220;broad construction&#8221; would lead to several problems and create  “significant unintended consequences that could greatly harm localities.”</p> <p>Parson said he supported several provisions in the bill, including a sales tax exemption for some cancer treatment devices, changes to aircraft property taxation, and changes in sales tax remittance filing periods. He did not mention support for the provisions relating to cannabis.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>The fact that Missouri has a medical marijuana program in the first place flies in the face of federal cannabis prohibition.</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>The legalization of medical marijuana in Missouri removed a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, 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>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 i</a>n 2019. New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election. Earlier this year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action.</p> <p>With 36 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 18 legalizing for adult recreational use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</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>The passage of SB226 demonstrates another important strategic reality, Parson&#8217;s veto notwithstanding. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – the law 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-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-to-eliminate-state-conformity-with-irs-section-280e-for-marijuana-businesses/">Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill to Eliminate State Conformity with IRS Section 280E for Marijuana Businesses</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis Marijuana Missouri SB226 Mike Maharrey Louisiana Politicians Cave to Law Enforcement, Uphold Veto of “Constitutional Carry” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/louisiana-politicians-cave-to-law-enforcement-uphold-veto-of-constitutional-carry/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:27a04ada-1e70-59e6-567c-02ffca94d83e Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:12:38 +0000 <p>Republicans Sen. Louie Bernard, Sen. Patrick Connick, and Sen. Franklin Foil flip-flopped and voted no on the veto override after initially voting to pass SB118. Republican Sen. Ronnie Johns was absent for the vote. The lone Democrat to change his vote was Sen. Gary Smith.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/louisiana-politicians-cave-to-law-enforcement-uphold-veto-of-constitutional-carry/">Louisiana Politicians Cave to Law Enforcement, Uphold Veto of “Constitutional Carry”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BATON ROUGE</strong>, La. (July 21, 2021) – Pressured by law enforcement, Louisiana Senators caved and failed to override Gov. John Bel Edwards&#8217;s veto of a  “Constitutional Carry” bill that would have made it legal for Louisianans to carry a concealed firearm without a license and foster an environment hostile to federal gun control.<span id="more-37766"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jay Morris (R-West Monroe) introduced Senate Bill 118 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/bill/SB118/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB118</a>) on March 30. The proposed change in the law would allow Louisiana residents 21 and over who are not prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Under the proposed law, the state would continue issuing conceal carry permits for residents who want to carry in other states that have CCDW reciprocity with Louisiana.</p> <p>The Democrat governor&#8217;s veto of the bill wasn&#8217;t surprising, but the Senate&#8217;s failure to override it was pretty shocking. The Republican-dominated Senate initially passed SB118 by a <a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/rollcall/SB118/id/1089262" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vote of 27-9</a>. The veto override failed by <a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/rollcall/SB118/id/1105269" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 23-15 margin</a>, three votes short of the 26 necessary to overturn the veto.</p> <p>Republicans Sen. Louie Bernard, Sen. Patrick Connick, and Sen. Franklin Foil flip-flopped and voted no on the veto override after initially voting to pass SB118. Republican Sen. Ronnie Johns was absent for the vote. The lone Democrat to change his vote was Sen. Gary Smith.</p> <p>“Their betrayal of gun owners speaks VOLUMES, as they only voted ‘pro-gun’ earlier in the session when their votes didn’t matter. Gun owners will remember this backstab at the ballot box,&#8221; <a href="https://www.gunowners.org/betrayal-five-louisiana-legislators-fail-gun-owners-in-veto-override-session/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gun Owners of America</a> said in a statement.</p> <p>Police opposition to permitless carry put pressure on senators to sustain the veto. According to <a href="https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/politics/louisiana-senate-rejects-veto-override-on-constitutional-carry/289-9df92c45-76ec-4c9a-b9f0-0502f5b1a6f2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">4WWL TV in New Orleans</a>, &#8220;Dozens of officers, police chiefs, sheriffs and deputies called on lawmakers to not override the veto and to keep curent concealed carry requirements in place.&#8221;</p> <p>At least one senator was influenced by police opposition to permitless carry. According to 4WWL, Sen. Connick said he spoke with law enforcement in his area that were in opposition to overturning the veto.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing SB118 would lower barriers for those wanting the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/louisiana-politicians-cave-to-law-enforcement-uphold-veto-of-constitutional-carry/">Louisiana Politicians Cave to Law Enforcement, Uphold Veto of “Constitutional Carry”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Concealed Carry Constitutional Carry firearms guns Louisiana SB118 Mike Maharrey Power Corrupts https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/power-corrupts/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9c07dade-10eb-ec03-d37e-817ab30ef3a3 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:04:44 +0000 <p>why are people so quick to disregard this poignant warning when it comes to politicians?</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/power-corrupts/">Power Corrupts</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Most people nod in agreement when they hear Lord Acton&#8217;s famous warning, &#8220;Power tends to corrupt&#8230;&#8221; So, why are people so quick to disregard this poignant warning when it comes to politicians?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">People forget that the power you give politicians to do things you like today &#8211; will be used by other politicians in the future. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/powercorrupts?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#powercorrupts</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://t.co/OKBPSX9PYN">pic.twitter.com/OKBPSX9PYN</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1417533876222586880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 20, 2021</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/2020/11/29/you-should-barely-know-the-federal-government-exists/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">You Should Barely Know the Federal Government Exists</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/05/power-corrupts-so-dont-trust-anyone-who-has-it/">Power Corrupts. So Don’t Trust Anyone Who Has it</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/having-a-muscle-car-turned-me-into-a-jerk/">Having a Muscle Car Turned Me Into a Jerk</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/power-corrupts/">Power Corrupts</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Republocrats government power Lord Acton Politicians Power Mike Maharrey Court Packing: Unnecessary and Improper https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/court-packing-unnecessary-and-improper/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:439e70b0-c8cf-5f2a-f3c7-5e2296b9e450 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 17:47:43 +0000 <p>Is Court Packing Constitutional? Based on how they want to use it - no, and it’s not even close. Expanding the size of the court for logistical reasons is authorized by the Constitution and has been done in the past, but doing so in order to drive political outcomes is neither necessary nor proper, and should be soundly rejected.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/court-packing-unnecessary-and-improper/">Court Packing: Unnecessary and Improper</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Is Court Packing Constitutional? Based on how they want to use it &#8211; no, and it’s not even close. Expanding the size of the court for logistical reasons is authorized by the Constitution and has been done in the past, but doing so in order to drive political outcomes is neither necessary nor proper, and should be soundly rejected.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 21, 2021 <span id="more-37768"></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 loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/vy7G_RNpqyM?start=69" title="YouTube video player" 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://twitter.com/kurtlash1/status/1315311492699435008" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kurt Lash on FDR Packing</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/why-supreme-court-has-nine-justices-opinion-1540685" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Keith Whittington &#8211; Court expansion history</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0202" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison &#8211; Report of 1800</a></p> <p><a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/20/court-packing-is-unconstitutional/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Randy Barnett &#8211; Court Packing is Unconstitutional</a></p> <p><a href="https://lawliberty.org/is-court-packing-constitutional/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Michael Rappaport &#8211; Is Court Packing Unconstitutional?</a></p> <p><a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10562" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Congressional Research Service </a></p> <p>Episode &#8211; https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/necessary-and-proper-not-anything-and-everything/ </p> <p><a href="https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/research/faculty-research/new-deal/legislation/sen060737.htm" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Senate Judiciary Report on the packing plan (June 7, 1937)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071921:1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/no-representation-antifederalist-brutus-no-4-60f5bab00c435f54bda68c67" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071921:1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1263912468188598272" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/aca6b571-926a-468e-a438-3933c0f80050" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/6RtlbooAj_/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/2I9V3kkSb1Gq/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/42b6eb61-c8d2-4254-a29b-311d2c9fba9d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/8259c1f1-ae8d-4d60-a291-d9108c6a645e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1417159043802599428" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRhIThyrkUy/" 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></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/court-packing-unnecessary-and-improper/">Court Packing: Unnecessary and Improper</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Judiciary Necessary and Proper Clause Path to Liberty Court Packing John Marshall necessary and proper Principles and Incidents Supreme court Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 34:45 Is Court Packing Constitutional? Based on how they want to use it - no, and it’s not even close. Expanding the size of the court for logistical reasons is authorized by the Constitution and has been done in the past, Is Court Packing Constitutional? Based on how they want to use it - no, and it’s not even close. Expanding the size of the court for logistical reasons is authorized by the Constitution and has been done in the past, but doing so in order to drive political outcomes is neither necessary nor proper, and should be soundly rejected.<br /> California Assembly Committee Approves Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committee-approves-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:7d81f1ac-6846-ad97-6207-af61ab115bb8 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:53:21 +0000 <p>Last week, a second California Assembly committee passed a bill that would legalize possession of several psychedelic drugs including LSD and “magic mushrooms,” despite federal prohibition on the same.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committee-approves-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/">California Assembly Committee Approves Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (July 21, 2021) – Last week, a second California Assembly committee passed a bill that would legalize possession of several psychedelic drugs including LSD and “magic mushrooms,” despite federal prohibition on the same.<span id="more-37759"></span></p> <p>Sen. Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 519 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB519/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB519</a>) on Feb. 17. The legislation would legalize and make lawful the possession and personal use of the following substances by adults 21 and over.</p> <ul> <li>psilocybin</li> <li>psilocyn</li> <li>MDMA</li> <li>LSD</li> <li>DMT</li> <li>mescaline (excluding peyote)</li> <li>ibogaine</li> </ul> <p>Under the proposed law “social sharing” of these substances would also be legal.</p> <p>On July 13, the Assembly Committee on Health passed SB519 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB519/id/1104684" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an 8-4 vote</a>. It previously <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB519/id/1089518" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cleared the Senate by a vote of 21-16</a>.</p> <p>“Under SB 519, we will no longer arrest people and incarcerate them for the simple personal possession of psychedelics for personal or shared use,” Wiener told the committee on Tuesday. “That’s really the question here: Do we believe that we should be arresting someone because they possess psychedelics for personal use? I don’t think we should. Frankly, I think most people don’t think we should be doing that.”</p> <p>SB519 originally included expungement provisions that would dismiss and seal pending and prior convictions for offenses that would be made lawful by the passage of the bill. That language was stripped from the bill by an amendment from the sponsor.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, the Department of Public Health would be required to establish a working group “to study and make recommendations regarding possible regulatory systems that California could adopt to promote safe and equitable access to certain substances in permitted legal contexts.” Its recommendations would be due by January 1, 2024.</p> <p>“Policy should be based on science and common sense, not fear and stigma,” Wiener said in a press release when he introduced the bill. “The War on Drugs and mass incarceration are destructive and failed policies, and we must end them. Moreover, given the severity of our mental health crisis, we shouldn’t be criminalizing people for using drugs that have shown significant promise in treating mental health conditions.”</p> <p>The introduction of SB519 follows <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/oregon-votes-to-decriminalize-cocaine-heroin-and-other-hard-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a successful ballot measure that decriminalized a number of drugs, including heroin and cocaine in Oregon</a>.</p> <p>Last year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/ann-arbor-becomes-third-city-to-decriminalize-psilocybin-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ann Arbor became the third city in the U.S. to decriminalize “magic mushrooms.”</a> Oakland and Denver have also effectively decriminalized psilocybin – a substance hallucinogenic substance found in certain mushrooms.  A number of studies have shown psilocybin to be effective in the treatment of depression, PTSD, chronic pain and addiction. For instance, <a href="https://maps.org/other-psychedelic-research/211-psilocybin-research/psilocybin-studies-in-progress/1268-johns_hopkins_study_of_psilocybin_in_cancer_patients" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a Johns Hopkins study</a> found that “psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer.”</p> <p>Decriminalization and legalization efforts at the state and local level are moving forward despite the federal government’s prohibition of these various substances.</p> <p><b>LEGALITY</b></p> <p>Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains the complete prohibition of many of the drugs on SB519’s decriminalization list and heavily regulates others. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate such substances 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>In effect, the passage of SB519 would end criminal enforcement of laws prohibiting the possession of these drugs in California. As we’ve seen with marijuana and hemp, when states and localities stop enforcing laws banning a substance, the federal government finds it virtually impossible to maintain prohibition. For instance, FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing or ending state prohibition, states sweep part of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 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 and local assistance, and the same will likely hold true with other drugs.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB519 now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the full Assembly for consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committee-approves-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/">California Assembly Committee Approves Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills California Legalize psilocybin Psychedelics War on Drugs Mike Maharrey National Park Service Joining the National Surveillance State https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/20/national-park-service-joining-the-national-surveillance-state/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:821f7137-3e49-9127-09ee-8466ddc7f6ff Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:00:56 +0000 <p>According to the memo, the NPS and will keep everyone's personal information for 15 years at which time they promise to delete or shred it.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/20/national-park-service-joining-the-national-surveillance-state/">National Park Service Joining the National Surveillance State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>The U.S. National Park Service is joining the ever-growing national surveillance state.<span id="more-36482"></span></p> <p>According to a <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-14985.pdf?utm_campaign=pi+subscription+mailing+list&amp;utm_source=federalregister.gov&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notice</a> published in the <i>Federal Register</i>, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is turning the National Park Service (NPS) into a mirror image of the NSA, FBI, DHS and every other three-letter spy agency you can think of.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Interior DOI is issuing a public notice of its intent to modify the National Park Service (NPS) Privacy Act system of records, INTERIOR/NPS-1, Special Use Permits.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>This so-called modification of special records permits will allow law enforcement to collect a disturbing amount of personal information on national park visitors.</p> <p>As <i>Nextgov</i> <a href="https://www.nextgov.com/analytics-data/2021/07/national-park-service-share-special-use-permit-data-white-house/183719/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">points out</a>, anyone wishing to get a permit to use one of America&#8217;s 423 national parks will have all their personal information sent to the White House.</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;The NPS is making it easier to share more data with the White House and other federal agencies on applications and approvals of special use permits for parks spaces.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>America&#8217;s absurd War on Terror is now targeting picnics, family gatherings, weddings, etc.</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;People interested in using a park for a specific purpose at a specific time generally have to obtain a special use permit. NPS issues permits for three types of uses: standard events like weddings, sports, picnics and family gatherings; special events like demonstrations, races, tournaments and the like; and construction, research and utility work.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>When park users apply for such permits, the system collects a wealth of data needed to process the application, including:</p> <ul> <li>Name, organization, Social Security number, Tax Identification Number, date of birth, address, telephone number, fax number, email address, person’s position title.</li> <li>Information of proposed activity including park alpha code, permit number, date, location, number of participants and vehicles, type of use, equipment, support personnel for the activity, company, project name and type, fees, liability insurance information.</li> <li>Payment information including amounts paid, credit card number, credit card expiration date, check number, money order number, bank or financial institution, account number, payment reference number and tracking ID number.</li> <li>Information on special activities including number of minors, livestock, aircraft type, special effects, special effect technician’s license and permit number, stunts, unusual or hazardous activities.</li> <li>Information on driver’s license including number, state and expiration date.</li> <li>Vehicle information including year, make, color, weight, plate number and insurance information.</li> </ul> <p>According to the notice in the Federal Register, the purpose in collecting everyone&#8217;s personal information is &#8220;to provide park superintendents with information to approve or deny requests for activities on NPS managed park lands.&#8221;</p> <p>Does anyone really believe park rangers or campground hosts need visitors&#8217; SSNs, DOBs, bank account numbers, etc., so they can approve or deny a person&#8217;s request to use our national park[s]?</p> <p><i>Nextgov</i> does a great job of describing the NPS collecting park visitors&#8217; personal information as being an innocuous &#8220;update.&#8221; It is not.</p> <p>Page 7 of the notice reveals that the NPS will routinely send everyone&#8217;s personal information to numerous federal agencies.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOI as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3).&#8221; </i></p></blockquote> <p>Below is an abbreviated description of the federal agencies that will routinely have access to permit application park visitors&#8217; personal information.</p> <p>A. The Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other Federal agency. Any other Federal agency appearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals.</p> <p>B. A congressional office when requesting information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.</p> <p>C. The Executive Office of the President.</p> <p>D. Any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law – criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.</p> <p>E. An official of another Federal agency.</p> <p>F. Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal, or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.</p> <p>G. Representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration.</p> <p>H. State, territorial and local governments and tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to a court order.</p> <p>I. An expert, consultant, grantee, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI’s behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.</p> <p>J. Appropriate agencies, entities of the Federal Government.</p> <p>K. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DOI determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency.</p> <p>L. The Office of Management and Budget.</p> <p>N. The news media and the public, with the approval of the Public Affairs Officer in consultation with counsel and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy.</p> <p>According to the memo, the NPS and will keep everyone&#8217;s personal information for 15 years at which time they promise to delete or shred it.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;Retention of records with short-term operational value and not considered essential for the ongoing management of land and cultural and natural resources are destroyed 15 years after closure. Paper records are disposed of by shredding or pulping, and records contained on electronic media are degaussed or erased in accordance with 384 Departmental Manual 1.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>Does anyone really think that picnics, family gatherings and weddings pose a threat to our Homeland?</p> <p>There is one bit of good news to come out of turning the NPS into a spy agency and that is national park visitors can request a copy of what records the Feds have on them if they include the specific bureau or office that keeps those records in an information request.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;An individual requesting records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the applicable System Manager identified above. The request must include the specific bureau or office that maintains the record to facilitate location of the applicable records. The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS.”</i><i> </i></p></blockquote> <p>And as you can see from the list above, it is going to be a crapshoot to guess which specific federal agency or which branch of law enforcement was spying on your picnic, family gathering, or wedding.</p> <p>It is hard to imagine that when Congress created the National Park Service in 1872, they would have envisioned that the White House would turn it into a spy agency.</p> <p>As Americans everywhere <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-parks-overcrowding-yellowstone-yosemite/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rush to visit our national parks</a>, how many of them will care that the Feds are collecting vast amounts of personal information about them and storing it for 15 years?</p> <p>Do Americans care enough to stop DHS from turning formerly benign government institutions like the <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-postal-service-social-media.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. Postal Service</a> and the National Park Service into federal spying agencies? Only time will tell.</p> <p>This article was <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/07/national-park-service-to-spy-on-picnics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originally published at MassPrivateI</a>,</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/20/national-park-service-joining-the-national-surveillance-state/">National Park Service Joining the National Surveillance State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Federal Agencies NPS National Park Service Surveillance jprivate Kentucky Bill Would End State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/kentucky-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ac2900da-8fb3-e93a-1de0-135c9d112d56 Tue, 20 Jul 2021 16:07:02 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit police officers, state employees, and employees of any political subdivision of the state from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of any new “federal ban” on firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. It would also prohibit the expenditure or allocation of public funds or resources for such enforcement.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/kentucky-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/">Kentucky Bill Would End State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>FRANKFORT</strong>, Ky. (July 20, 2021) &#8211; A bill prefiled in the Kentucky House for the 2022 session would ban enforcement of future federal gun control. This would take a major step toward bringing such federal acts to an end within the state.<span id="more-37707"></span></p> <p>Rep. Josh Bray (R-Mt. Vernon) and Rep. Russell Webber (R-Shepherdsville) prefiled Bill Request 171 (<a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/22rs/prefiled/BR171.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BR171</a>) on June 25. The legislation would prohibit police officers, state employees, and employees of any political subdivision of the state from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of any new “federal ban” on firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. It would also prohibit the expenditure or allocation of public funds or resources for such enforcement.</p> <p>HB258 defines “federal ban” as &#8220;a federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that is enacted, adopted, or becomes effective on or after January 1, 2021, or a new and more restrictive interpretation of a law that existed on January 21, 2021, that infringes upon, calls into question, prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessory.&#8221;</p> <p>The legislation is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-montana-prohibits-state-enforcement-of-any-new-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a law enacted in Montana</a> this year.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The Commonwealth of Kentucky can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>BR171 will be introduced during the 2022 legislative session. At that time, it will receive a bill number and a committee assignment. As a first step, it must pass the committee by a majority vote.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/kentucky-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/">Kentucky Bill Would End State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Federal Gun Control firearms Kentucky Mike Maharrey California Assembly Committees Pass Bill to Close Qualified Immunity Loopholes in State Law https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committees-pass-bill-to-close-qualified-immunity-loopholes-in-state-law/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:095a18d9-4011-edff-3262-b099682d471c Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:55:06 +0000 <p>SB2 would close the loopholes in the current law and create a legitimate alternative pathway to sue law enforcement officers without qualified immunity as a defense. It would also create a framework to strip police officers who violate individual rights of their right to work law enforcement in California.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committees-pass-bill-to-close-qualified-immunity-loopholes-in-state-law/">California Assembly Committees Pass Bill to Close Qualified Immunity Loopholes in State Law</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (July 20, 2021) – Two California Assembly committees have passed a bill that would create a process to sue police officers for violations of rights in state court without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-37758"></span></p> <p>Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) introduced Senate Bill 2 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB2/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB2</a>) last December. The legislation would amend existing state law that creates a cause of action in state courts to sue a “person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.”</p> <p>The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act was originally enacted to address “hate crimes,” but it has also been used to sue police officers who violate individual rights. Qualified immunity is not a defense under the law, but <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2021/05/this-34-year-old-law-is-californias-best-hope-to-end-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to <em>Mission Local</em></a>, “It still grants police officers immunity for certain major offenses, critics say, and it has been ‘mangled’ by the courts over its three-decade lifespan.”</p> <p>While the current law does not provide a qualified immunity defense, it grants “absolute immunity” to police officers who plant evidence, use excessive force on prisoners, or deny prisoners proper medical care. San Diego-based civil rights attorney Julia Yoo told <em>Mission Local</em>, the law provides these immunities to “law-breaking police officers who engage in the most egregious misconduct.”</p> <p>“It’s not even a qualified immunity. You can’t file a lawsuit — period,” she said.</p> <p>SB2 would close the loopholes in the current law and create a legitimate alternative pathway to sue law enforcement officers without qualified immunity as a defense. It would also create a framework to strip police officers who violate individual rights of their right to work law enforcement in California.</p> <p>In May, the Senate passed SB2 <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB2/id/1086115" target="_blank" rel="noopener">by a 26-9 vote</a>. On July 6, the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved the measure with some technical amendments by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB2/id/1104301" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an 8-2 vote</a>. The following week, the Assembly Public Safety Committee passed SB2 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB2/id/1104734" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 6-2 vote</a>.</p> <p><strong>The Process </strong></p> <p>Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But <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.</p> <p>California law creates an alternative path in state court. The passage of SB2 would significantly strengthen that law in its application to law enforcement officers.</p> <p><strong>In Practice</strong></p> <p>It remains unclear how the state legal process will play out in practice.</p> <p>The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.</p> <p>The second question is if police officers will be able to have cases removed to federal jurisdiction in order to take advantage of qualified immunity.</p> <p>Language in California’ law opens that door. People can sue in state court for violations of the U.S. Constitution or laws of the United States, as well as the California state constitution. All matters regarding the U.S. Constitution or federal law can be remanded to federal courts. To avoid this, plaintiffs would have to sue based solely on the California Constitution, its bill of rights and the laws of the state. The only way to avoid federal jurisdiction and ensure federal qualified immunity doesn’t come into play would be to limit the suit to <strong>state</strong> constitutional issues.</p> <p>Even if the suit is focused on state law and the Massachusetts constitution, state and local law enforcement officers working <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/16/joint-law-enforcement-task-forces-are-creating-a-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on joint state/federal task forces</a> would almost certainly be able to move the case to federal court. They are effectively treated as federal agents.</p> <p>One attorney told the Tenth Amendment Center that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.</p> <p>Other lawyers we talked to said it wasn’t clear to them that the federal courts would have to honor the state statute. It is possible that the federal court could simply decide its jurisdiction supersedes state law and hear the case under the federal process, including the application of qualified immunity. Only time will tell how the process will play out in practice. Regardless, the state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity upfront.</p> <p><strong>Moving Forward </strong></p> <p>The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleventh Circuit decision</a> granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.</p> <p>Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. <a href="https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A bill</a> sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and  Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) during the last Congress would have done just that, but it was never taken up. Congress does not have a good track record on reining in government power.</p> <p>The best path forward is to bypass the federal system completely.</p> <p>Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case <em>Malley v. Briggs</em>, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Reuters</em> called it</a> “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”</p> <p>Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/dave-roland-no-more-excuses-hold-law-enforcement-officials-accountable/article_9d627981-1950-5858-abd9-d14cf587def6.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB2 now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the full Assembly.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committees-pass-bill-to-close-qualified-immunity-loopholes-in-state-law/">California Assembly Committees Pass Bill to Close Qualified Immunity Loopholes in State Law</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Qualified Immunity State Bills California Incorporation Doctrine Police SB2 Mike Maharrey Signed by the Governor: Oregon Further Limits State and Local Cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/signed-by-the-governor-oregon-further-limits-state-and-local-cooperation-with-federal-immigration-enforcement/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3d30fe02-9ffe-c506-2baa-b9ba795835e1 Tue, 20 Jul 2021 03:38:23 +0000 <p>Most significantly, it prohibits state and local agencies in Oregon from collecting information about a person’s citizenship status, or using any resources for immigration enforcement.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/signed-by-the-governor-oregon-further-limits-state-and-local-cooperation-with-federal-immigration-enforcement/">Signed by the Governor: Oregon Further Limits State and Local Cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SALEM</strong>, Ore. (July 19, 2021) &#8211; Today, the Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill into law that further limit states cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.<span id="more-37850"></span></p> <p>Oregon enacted the very first known immigration &#8220;sanctuary state&#8221; law in 1987. Current law prohibits state and local law enforcement agents in Oregon from using agency money, equipment, or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.</p> <p>A coalition of Democrats introduced House Bill 3265 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OR/bill/HB3265/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB3265</a>) earlier this year to strengthen and expand the sanctuary state law with several provisions. Most significantly, it prohibits state and local agencies in Oregon from collecting information about a person’s citizenship status, or using any resources for immigration enforcement.</p> <p>This provision will basically do an end-run around  <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/316426-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities-is-unlikely-to-threaten">8 USC 1373</a>. Under this federal law, states and localities cannot ban information sharing with the feds related to a person’s immigration status. But if state and local law enforcement officers are prohibited from asking about immigration of citizenship status, they can’t violate the federal law in question. They can’t share information and data they don’t have.</p> <p>Some prominent constitutional scholars, including Ilya Somin, argue that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/12/more-on-federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/?tid=a_inl&amp;utm_term=.c77e13349721" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this federal act is also unconstitutional</a> and represents an illegal commandeering of state resources.</p> <p>HB3265 prohibits state and local agencies from inquiring about individual&#8217;s citizenship status without a connection to criminal investigation, or providing information about individual in custody to federal immigration authority. The law also prohibits state and local agencies from denying services to people in the criminal justice system solely based on their immigration status.</p> <p>The new law also expands on the 1987 measure, and prohibits the use of &#8220;public facilities, property, moneys, equipment, technology or personnel may not be used for the purpose of investigating, detecting, apprehending, arresting, detaining or holding individuals for immigration enforcement.&#8221;</p> <p>It also bans agencies from entering into any new agreements with the federal government that authorize &#8220;the public body, law enforcement agency or officer to exercise federal immigration enforcement powers.&#8221;</p> <p>HB3265 passed the House <a href="https://legiscan.com/OR/rollcall/HB3265/id/1098985" target="_blank" rel="noopener">by a 36-21 vote</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/OR/rollcall/HB3265/id/1100598" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approved the measure 16-13</a>. With Brown&#8217;s signature, it went into immediate effect.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>While the law will not allow state agencies to directly interfere with federal immigration enforcement, it will leave the ICE to enforce immigration law by itself in many situations. This would likely make it much more difficult for the federal government to enforce federal immigration law in Oregon.</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice</a> for states and individuals in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on gun control, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>With immigration, federal resources are even more stretched, as noted in a column published by <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/316426-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities-is-unlikely-to-threaten"><em>The Hill.</em></a></p> <blockquote> <p dir="ltr">As the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) <a href="https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notes on its website</a>, the first and foremost factor impacting its enforcement capability is “the level of cooperation from state and local law enforcement partners.”</p> <p dir="ltr">With just over 5,700 agents nationwide, ERO reported removal of “240,255 aliens in FY 2016.” In spite of the supposedly high number of sanctuary cities nationwide, this number actually represented an uptick from 2015 due partly to what ERO called “increased state and local cooperation.”</p> <p dir="ltr">At this rate, removing anywhere close to the <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">at least 11 million unauthorized immigrants</a> in the country right now seems impossible.</p> </blockquote> <p>Simply put, partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits. And in this case, when most of the team stops participating.</p> <p><strong>LEGALITY</strong></p> <p>Provisions withdrawing state and local enforcement of federal law in HB3265 rest on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program.</p> <p>The <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/tacdocs/The+Anti-Commandeering+Doctrine.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">anti-commandeering doctrine</a> is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. US</em> (1997) serves as the cornerstone. In it, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p>Additionally, in the 1842 <em>Prigg v. Pennsylvania</em> case, the Court held that while the federal Fugitive Slave Act could not be physically impeded by states, they simply weren’t required to help the federal government capture runaway slaves and return them to bondage in the South.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/signed-by-the-governor-oregon-further-limits-state-and-local-cooperation-with-federal-immigration-enforcement/">Signed by the Governor: Oregon Further Limits State and Local Cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Immigration State Bills HB3265 Oregon Sanctuary State Mike Maharrey Does the Constitution Mean What It Says? https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/19/does-the-constitution-mean-what-it-says/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:63b1d734-7ade-81c7-8f42-807e96ac1bce Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:00:28 +0000 <p>The whole idea that rights can be turned off like a light switch and those in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping can get away with doing nothing when this happens is sadly consistent with the lack of fidelity to the Constitution so regularly displayed by those in government today.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/19/does-the-constitution-mean-what-it-says/">Does the Constitution Mean What It Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p><i>&#8220;No person &#8230; shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.&#8221;</i> — Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution</p> <p>Abdulsalam al-Hela is a 53-year-old Yemeni cleric who has been incarcerated by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba since 2004. He has not been charged with any crime. His case has a long and complex legal history, but it is instructive to all who believe that the Constitution means what it says.<span id="more-36480"></span></p> <p>Hela is represented by competent counsel who have filed numerous petitions in his behalf asking the courts to compel the government to comply with the Constitution and justify his confinement. The underlying constitutional principles here are due process and habeas corpus. The obligations of complying with both are imposed upon the federal government by the Constitution.</p> <p>Due process — which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment — means that every person confined or charged by the government is absolutely entitled to a notice of the charges against him, a fair hearing on those charges before a neutral judge and jury, and the right to appeal any adverse decision to other fair and neutral judges. Hela is also entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. It permits all confined persons to ask a judge to compel the government to justify the confinement.</p> <p>When Hela asked for due process and habeas corpus relief in federal district court in Washington, D.C. — the judicial venue for all Guantanamo Bay detainees — a district court judge denied his petition because the government has called Hela an enemy combatant and the president, the court ruled, has the lawful power to confine him for the duration of whatever hostilities he and the U.S. were engaged in.</p> <p>But the government acknowledges that Hela was not engaged in any hostilities. Moreover, the United States itself is no longer engaged in hostilities in the Middle East, though presidents Donald Trump and Joseph Biden have, from time to time, sent missiles into that scorched-earth part of the world just to remind the folks there who still claims to be king of the hill.</p> <p>Hela appealed the district court&#8217;s denial of habeas corpus and due process relief to the federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. A panel of three judges from that court chose not to address due process directly and instead denied Hela&#8217;s application for habeas. It did so not because the president — Trump, at the time — claims the power to confine foreign supporters of foreign groups violently at odds with the U.S., but for the historically novel reason that Hela has no property in the U.S. and is not confined here.</p> <p>This is not only an absurd rationale, as the Constitution imposes no property requirement as a precondition to the use of habeas corpus, but it also defies several Supreme Court opinions that hold that wherever the government goes lawfully and permanently, the Constitution goes with it. Stated differently, the court has ruled that the government must uphold basic human and constitutional rights for all those it confines for more than a passing period, including those at Guantanamo Bay.</p> <p>Why is this case important?</p> <p>Hela is obviously an unsympathetic figure. The government says that as a cleric, he used words — which, if used in the United States, would have been protected by the First Amendment — to encourage young people to join militias that either did or could have attacked American troops. But the courts have never upheld confinement without charge for the mere use of words. Nor have they condoned a 17-year confinement without so much as the filing of any charges.</p> <p>One can conclude that the government lacks evidence with which to charge and prosecute Hela. If that is so, it must let him go. This is basic constitutional law. But you would not know that from the position taken by the Biden Department of Justice.</p> <p>According to The New York Times, DOJ lawyers debated privately for weeks over whether Hela has due process rights. The deadline for the DOJ&#8217;s response to Hela&#8217;s appeal was last Friday. No surprise, the DOJ filed its brief to the court under seal but then leaked certain parts to the press.</p> <p>The leaks revealed that lawyers at the DOJ could not agree if the word &#8220;person&#8221; in the Fifth Amendment means &#8220;every person&#8221; or &#8220;every American person.&#8221; And so, in this monumental case, in which a federal appellate court negated long-recognized constitutional rights based on a novel and unconstitutional theory, the Biden Department of Justice remained mute. The Times also reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland recused himself from the case entirely because he once sat on the federal appeals court in Washington, though not on the panel that rejected Hela&#8217;s appeal.</p> <p>What&#8217;s going on here? We have another political Department of Justice. But this one is afraid to take an unpopular stance — even though such a stance is dictated by the Constitution and the plain meaning of its words.</p> <p>The DOJ&#8217;s failure to attack the made-up-out-of-thin-air property or physical presence requirement is not just a failure of nerve or a cover for the White House; it is a failure of the DOJ&#8217;s obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, no matter how obscure or unpopular the object of that defense may be.</p> <p>The whole idea that rights can be turned off like a light switch and those in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping can get away with doing nothing when this happens is sadly consistent with the lack of fidelity to the Constitution so regularly displayed by those in government today.</p> <p>I have asked this question before, without answer: Why do we repose the Constitution for safekeeping into the hands of those who subvert it?</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/19/does-the-constitution-mean-what-it-says/">Does the Constitution Mean What It Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> 5th Amendment Abdulsalam al-Hela Due Process Guantanamo Bay Judge Andrew Napolitano No Representation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 4 https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/no-representation-antifederalist-brutus-no-4/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:364c3374-524c-41c3-a6ba-78fef1f35af6 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 17:34:23 +0000 <p>In his 4th essay, Antifederalist Brutus made the case that the federal House of Representatives could never be truly representative - because there are far too few members. He predicted this would lead to corruption and bribery. And rather than resulting in a free government, it would lead to one of consolidation, force, and coercion.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/no-representation-antifederalist-brutus-no-4/">No Representation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 4</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>In his 4th essay, Antifederalist Brutus made the case that the federal House of Representatives could never be truly representative &#8211; because there are far too few members. He predicted this would lead to corruption and bribery. And rather than resulting in a free government, it would lead to one of consolidation, force, and coercion.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 19, 2021 <span id="more-37753"></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 loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/N8OEbyeKnuo?start=41" title="YouTube video player" 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://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-iv/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus No IV Nov 29, 1787</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.founderoftheday.com/founder-of-the-day/brutus-iv" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Founder of the Day</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.taraross.com/post/the-anti-federalist-papers-brutus-iv" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tara Ross </a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071621:c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/the-other-first-president-samuel-huntington-60f1bc51cffe83cf14f28f79" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071621:c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1262813946440318976" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/f1eeb5ee-7429-40bf-8b31-f72282e4f3e8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/6Numl2z-9Q/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/d2hct5j0cN1l/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/43b0f28e-1cb5-49aa-86c4-4742875e64d4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/18f10fea-e14b-4a07-b48d-38b0adcf43de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1416072131763449862" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6821848817630105600" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRZVa5cr80r/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60f1bee3ba505f6c17ceaaba" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</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></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/no-representation-antifederalist-brutus-no-4/">No Representation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 4</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Antifederalists Audio/Video Brutus Congress Path to Liberty Antifederalist Antifederalist Papers Brutus No IV Ratification Debates Representation Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 31:23 In his 4th essay, Antifederalist Brutus made the case that the federal House of Representatives could never be truly representative - because there are far too few members. He predicted this would lead to corruption and bribery. In his 4th essay, Antifederalist Brutus made the case that the federal House of Representatives could never be truly representative - because there are far too few members. He predicted this would lead to corruption and bribery. And rather than resulting in a free government, it would lead to one of consolidation, force, and coercion. Tennessee “Constitutional Carry” Law Now in Effect https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/tennessee-constitutional-carry-law-now-in-effect/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:269729b6-4b1f-de65-c68e-df266ffbbdfe Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:19:39 +0000 <p>the enactment of SB765/HB786 does take a step forward and removes the permit requirement for most adults in Tennessee. In fact, it was unlikely a more sweeping measure would have passed at this time given the intense law enforcement lobby opposition.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/tennessee-constitutional-carry-law-now-in-effect/">Tennessee “Constitutional Carry” Law Now in Effect</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>NASHVILLE</strong>, Tenn. (July 19, 2021) – On July 1, a “constitutional carry” law went into effect in Tennessee making it legal to carry a concealed handgun without a permit and fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control in the state.</p> <p><span id="more-37598"></span><span id="more-37029"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jack Johnson (R-Brentwood), along with four fellow Republicans, introduced Senate Bill 765 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/bill/SB0765/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB765</a>) on Feb. 9. Rep. William Lamberth (R-Portland) sponsored a companion bill (<a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0786&amp;GA=112" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB786</a>) in the House. The new law allows adults 21 and older who can legally possess a firearm in the state to carry a handgun concealed or openly without a state-issued license. Members of the military 18 to 20 can also carry without a permit under the new law. The current licensing program will remain in effect for those wishing to carry concealed in states with reciprocity with Tennessee.</p> <p>Under the law, Tennesseans will still need to have an enhanced permit to carry a rifle.</p> <p>Despite intense opposition by law enforcement lobbyists, <a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB0765/id/1032462" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB765 passed the Senate 23-9</a>. The <a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB0765/id/1032462" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House approved the measure 64-29</a>, With Gov. Bill Lee&#8217;s signature on April 8, the law went into effect on July 1.</p> <p>The <a href="https://tennesseefirearms.com/2021/06/tfa-analzyes-tennessees-permitless-carry-law-and-recommends-getting-the-permit-instead/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA) argues</a> that this isn&#8217;t a <strong>true</strong> constitutional carry because <a href="https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-39/chapter-17/part-13/39-17-1307" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a state law</a> making it a crime to carry a firearm &#8220;with the intent to go armed&#8221; remains in place. SB765/HB786 creates an exception to that law allowing adults over 21 to carry a concealed handgun without a permit, as long as they meet certain criteria. TFA finds this approach problematic.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The choice to make this an &#8216;exception&#8217; means that you have to satisfy each one of the conditions in order to avoid being charged with the crime. It likely means that a law enforcement officer is authorized to stop and detain any person who is observed carrying a handgun in order to determine if the person either has a valid permit or satisfies each of the conditions to the exception in the Governor’s law to the criminal charge.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Nevertheless, the enactment of SB765/HB786 does take a step forward and removes the permit requirement for most adults in Tennessee. In fact, it was unlikely a more sweeping measure would have passed at this time given the intense law enforcement lobby opposition.</p> <p>Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Mike Bell cosponsored the bill. He said it wasn&#8217;t everything he wanted, but it did move the “ball further down the field.” He said the legislature “… may come back to see how this works in a couple of years and come back and make some changes.”</p> <p>This has been the pattern with marijuana legalization. For instance, Virginia started with a very restrictive medical marijuana program and progressed to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/virginia-legalizes-recreational-marijuana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">full legalization this year</a>. When a state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand grows. That creates pressure to further relax state law. When the world doesn&#8217;t come to an end with this limited permitless carry law, there will certainly be pressure to expand it.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing SB765 will lower barriers for those wanting the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/tennessee-constitutional-carry-law-now-in-effect/">Tennessee “Constitutional Carry” Law Now in Effect</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Constitutional Carry firearms Permitless Carry SB765 second amendment Tennessee Mike Maharrey Defending the Constitution: Secrets behind those ‘obscure’ provisions https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/18/defending-the-constitution-secrets-behind-those-obscure-provisions/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:eb155825-30cf-f2d6-d142-686f7b7c67de Sun, 18 Jul 2021 20:34:12 +0000 <p>Here are questions and answers addressing five of the Constitution’s less famous provisions—including the Origination Clause.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/18/defending-the-constitution-secrets-behind-those-obscure-provisions/">Defending the Constitution: Secrets behind those ‘obscure’ provisions</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>In previous essays in the Defending the Constitution series, I’ve responded to “progressive” attacks on prominent terms in the document: <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-why-state-equality-in-the-senate-makes-sense_3761577.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">equal representation in the Senate</a>,<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-the-district-of-columbia-should-not-be-a-state_3788893.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> denying D.C. statehood</a>, and the <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-the-2nd-amendment-is-not-outdated_3801162.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Amendment</a>, among others.<span id="more-36478"></span></p> <p>But “progressives” also assail less prominent parts of the Constitution. For example, one liberal law professor <a href="https://i2i.org/a-response-to-professor-seidman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reacted</a> to the Origination Clause—requiring tax measures to be introduced first in the House rather than the Senate—with the question, “Why should anyone care?”</p> <p>Below are questions and answers addressing five of the Constitution’s less famous provisions—including the Origination Clause.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: Why did the Constitution require approval of conventions in nine states to ratify the document? (Article VII). Why not all 13, as required by the Articles of Confederation? Or why not a mere majority of seven?</p> <p><em>Answer</em>: As I explained in an earlier <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-the-framers-did-not-violate-their-trust_3771518.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">essay</a>, the Articles of Confederation did not create a real government. It was a treaty organization akin to the NATO compact. Under international law the signatories (the states) were free to make any new arrangements they thought best.</p> <p>The Confederation’s rule that amendments be approved unanimously had proved unworkable. However, the nine-state rule employed by the Confederation for other purposes was more acceptable.</p> <p>Moreover, ratification by popularly elected conventions in any nine states—even the nine least populated—would ensure that the document was approved by a majority of the electorate. (Compare the congressional allocation in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.) So upon ratification by nine states, the Constitution would have been endorsed by both (1) two-thirds of the states and (2) a majority of “We the People.”</p> <p>Each state had the option of refusing to ratify and staying out of the Union. No state took that option.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: Why does the Constitution require the president to be a natural born citizen? (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). Why not a naturalized citizen?</p> <p><em>Answer</em>: The framers understood that for republican government to work, there had to be a close identity of interest, knowledge, and feeling between the governors and the governed. We might call this “empathy,” but the founding-era term was <em>sympathy </em>(<a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/reminder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pdf</a>).</p> <p>Persons born and raised in foreign countries lack many of the formulative experiences most Americans share. Even the most patriotic naturalized citizens may have unconscious foreign loyalties or contacts. Or they may be subject to pressure imposed on family members in their place of birth. All these factors potentially create conflicts of interest.</p> <p>Indeed, the Constitution’s framers knew from English history of officials born or raised outside the country who betrayed their trust to foreign powers. In Britain, therefore, even members of Parliament had to be natural born.</p> <p>Yet the framers recognized that America was a nation of immigrants and needed the skills of naturalized citizens. In addition, the framers wished to avoid any appearance of creating a caste system. So because the president has principal responsibility for foreign affairs, they limited the “natural born” requirement to the president and to the vice president who might succeed him.</p> <p>In recent years, both Barack Obama and Kamala Harris have come under fire for allegedly failing to qualify as natural born citizens. Under the rules in effect when the Constitution was adopted, both do qualify as <a href="https://i2i.org/seems-blog-right-natural-born-citizenship-along/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">natural born</a>. But I sometimes wonder how their views might differ if they had not spent so much of their childhood outside America.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV provides, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” What does that mean?</p> <p><em>Answer</em>:  The Privileges and Immunities Clause has been widely misunderstood, even among legal scholars. However, in 2009 I published an exhaustive research article (<a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/PI-article-ocr.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pdf</a>) that I think pretty well establishes its meaning.</p> <p>“Privileges and immunities” was a common expression in 18th century legal documents, with a distinct legal meaning. A <em>privilege </em>was a benefit or advantage government bestowed on one or more people. (The modern word is “entitlement.”) An <em>immunity</em> was the flip side of a privilege. Thus, the privilege of a tax exemption was an immunity from taxation. Neither term included <em>natural rights</em>, such as freedom of religion or self-defense.</p> <p>The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides that if a state gives all its citizens a particular privilege, then the state must give the same privilege to visiting out-of-staters. Thus, if a state affords trial by jury to all adult citizens, then the state must offer trial by jury to visitors as well. Similarly, if a state prescribes procedures by which adult citizens may transfer land, then it must allow visitors access to those same procedures. But no state grants all adult citizens the privilege of voting, so no state need grant visitors the privilege of voting.</p> <p>Article IV contains several provisions designed to tie the states more closely to one another. The Privileges and Immunities Clause is one of these: It protects interstate travelers from certain kinds of discrimination.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: Article IV also has a provision that reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Why is this clause in the Constitution? What is the “Republican Form?”</p> <p><em>Answer</em>: This is called the Guarantee Clause. In the founding era, a <em>republic</em> was a sovereign political unit that (1) had no monarch, (2) followed the rule of law, and (3) rested directly or indirectly on the majority of citizens (<a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/A-Republic-Not-a-Democracy-Initiative-Referendum-and-the-Constitutions-Guarantee-Clause-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pdf</a>). The framers inserted the Guarantee Clause primarily to prevent any state from being a monarchy. They knew from history that when a monarchy was part of a federation, the monarch often tried to undermine other states in the federation.</p> <p>The Guarantee Clause imposes an obligation directly on the U.S. government and implicitly grants the government the power to carry it out.</p> <p>One last point on the Guarantee Clause: You may have heard that “We have a republic, not a democracy.” That expression is incorrect. American government is both a republic and a constitutional democracy.</p> <p>No 18th century sources distinguished sharply between republics and democracies. On the contrary, in most contexts the terms were interchangeable. For example, delegates to the Virginia convention that ratified the Constitution repeatedly referred to American governments as both “democracies” and “republics.” In the language of the time, the only democracies that were not republics were “pure democracies”—complete mob rule without either magistrates or the rule of law.</p> <p>The alleged distinction between republics and democracies arose from a distortion of James Madison’s Federalist No. 10 by partisans during a political dispute in the 1840s. They overlooked Federalist No. 63, where Madison treats the two terms as interchangeable.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: Why does the Constitution state that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1)?</p> <p><em>Answer</em>: This is the Origination Clause. In the British system, the leading protection for popular government was that all tax and spending bills had to be introduced in the House of Commons. The House of Lords could not even amend them; the Lords were limited to “yes” or “no.”</p> <p>The U.S. Senate is more representative of the people than the House of Lords, but less representative than the U.S. House of Representatives. The Origination Clause therefore is a compromise with British practice: (1) It applies only to tax bills and not to spending bills, and (2) the Senate, unlike the Lords, may propose amendments.</p> <p>The compromise was brokered at the Constitutional Convention by Delaware’s John Dickinson and Virginia’s Edmund Randolph—two essential Founders whose contributions are under-appreciated today. Dickinson and Randolph accurately judged that without the Origination Clause the people might reject the Constitution as “too aristocratic.”</p> <p>Incidentally, one of the reasons the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is unconstitutional is that part of it was enacted in violation of the Origination Clause (<a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/OC-Final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pdf</a>). The Supreme Court has never examined this issue.</p> <p><strong>This essay was <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-secrets-behind-those-obscure-provisions_3888970.html">first published</a> in the July 6, 2021 <em>Epoch Times.</em></strong></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/18/defending-the-constitution-secrets-behind-those-obscure-provisions/">Defending the Constitution: Secrets behind those ‘obscure’ provisions</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Constitution Founding Principles Guarantee Clause Natural Born Citizens Origination Clause Privileges and Immunities Clause Republican Form Rob Natelson The US Spending Problem Is Not Transitory https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-us-spending-problem-is-not-transitory/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f14cd89b-eab3-8f60-3c1c-5459e6598d76 Sun, 18 Jul 2021 19:19:42 +0000 <p>There is an ongoing debate about whether high inflation is "transitory" or rising prices are going to be more long-term and persistent. One thing for sure, the US government spending problem isn't transitory.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-us-spending-problem-is-not-transitory/">The US Spending Problem Is Not Transitory</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>There is an ongoing debate about whether high inflation is &#8220;transitory&#8221; or rising prices are going to be more long-term and persistent. One thing for sure, the US government spending problem isn&#8217;t transitory.</p> <p>And that has pretty significant ramifications if inflation is running out of control.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">This should be pretty obvious by now. The federal government&#39;s spending problem is definitely not temporary. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#economy</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/inflation?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#inflation</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nationaldebt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nationaldebt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/politics?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#politics</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://t.co/BzwNxod9hx">pic.twitter.com/BzwNxod9hx</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1416432167907852288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 17, 2021</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/2020/06/17/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-powers-the-most-powerful-government-in-history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Federal Reserve: The Engine that Powers the Most Powerful Government in History</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/10/partisan-hackery-blinds-people-to-the-real-problem/">Partisan Hackery Blinds People to the Real Problem</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/03/biden-borrow-and-spend-plan-builds-on-trump-legacy-and-makes-things-even-worse/">Biden Borrow and Spend Plan Builds on Trump Legacy and Makes Things Even Worse</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-us-spending-problem-is-not-transitory/">The US Spending Problem Is Not Transitory</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Debt Maharrey Minute budget deficit Federal Reserve government spending Inflation National Debt Mike Maharrey Central Banking vs. the Constitution https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/central-banking-vs-the-constitution/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:53f7ffc2-67c0-76e3-c6d8-fec473bbb86f Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:00:11 +0000 <p>During the interview, Mike Leavitt and I talk about central banking and how it fuels big government, the debate surrounding America's first national bank, and why Hamilton's victory in the argument over the bank undermined the Constitutional system.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/central-banking-vs-the-constitution/">Central Banking vs. the Constitution</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>The battle over the First Bank of the United States wasn&#8217;t only about banking. It was more fundamentally a constitutional debate. In this interview on the &#8220;<a href="https://andifloveremains.podbean.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">And If Love Remains</a>&#8221; podcast, I talk about the battle over Alexander Hamilton&#8217;s bank and the ramifications that continue to impact us today.<span id="more-37691"></span></p> <p>During the interview, Mike Leavitt and I talk about central banking and how it fuels big government, the debate surrounding America&#8217;s first national bank, and why Hamilton&#8217;s victory in the argument over the bank undermined the Constitutional system. Along the way, we also discuss America&#8217;s intended constitutional structure and the work of the Tenth Amendment Center.</p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.podbean.com/player-v2/?i=gdcm7-1082342-pb&amp;from=embed&amp;share=1&amp;download=1&amp;skin=f6f6f6&amp;btn-skin=8bbb4e&amp;size=315" width="100%" height="315" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/central-banking-vs-the-constitution/">Central Banking vs. the Constitution</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Federal Reserve Interviews Alexander Hamilton Central Banking Constitution Mike Maharrey Vetoed: Wisconsin Bill to End Support for Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/vetoed-wisconsin-bill-to-end-support-for-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:146b1558-af37-defc-86a2-ee48dd217fad Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:36:31 +0000 <p>Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a bill that would have prohibited local enforcement of some future federal gun control. Passage into law would have taken a first step toward stopping any new federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/vetoed-wisconsin-bill-to-end-support-for-future-federal-gun-control/">Vetoed: Wisconsin Bill to End Support for Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>MADISON</strong>, Wisc. (July 16, 2021) – Last week, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a bill that would have prohibited local enforcement of some future federal gun control. Passage into law would have taken a first step toward stopping any new federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.<span id="more-37728"></span></p> <p>A large coalition of Republicans introduced House Bill 293 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WI/bill/AB293/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AB293</a>) on May 3. The legislation would prohibit any person from enforcing a federal act, law, statute, rule, regulation, treaty, or order that takes effect on or after January 1, 2021, if it bans or restricts semi-automatic firearms, assault weapons, or magazines; requires registration of firearms, magazines, or other firearm accessories; regulates the capacity of magazines; regulates the quantity of ammunition or bullets an individual may possess; prohibits types of ammunition or bullets; or requires the confiscation of a firearm if the federal act isn’t identical to existing state law.</p> <p>The proposed law would also bar any state agency or other body in state government and any local governmental unit from expending money or using other resources to confiscate a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is lawfully possessed under the laws of Wisconsin.</p> <p>Anyone in violation of the law would be subject to Class A misdemeanor charges.</p> <p>Additionally, AB293 includes provisions to exempt a firearm, accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured within the state and that does not leave the state from federal regulations under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also includes potential misdemeanor charges for federal agents, although these two sections of the bill are unlikely to have an immediate impact without the approval of a federal court.</p> <p><strong>VETO</strong></p> <p>The Democrat governor was expected to veto the bill. In his <a href="https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/veto_messages/ab293.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto message</a>, Evers erroneously claimed &#8220;this bill is not permitted by the United States Constitution,&#8221; citing the supremacy clause.</p> <p>&#8220;This bill purports to nullify the enforcement of federal law,&#8221; he wrote.</p> <p>While the provisions applying to federal agents are arguably problematic, Evers completely ignores the fact that the Supreme Court has held consistently that states don&#8217;t have to enforce federal laws. The state of Wisconsin can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control (or any other federal act.) Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p>When Evers says the bill is unconstitutional, he&#8217;s either ignorant or lying.</p> <p>Since states have the authority to direct their personnel and resources as they see fit, they can legally punish state officers for participating in enforcement actions prohibited by state law..</p> <p>But admittedly, prosecuting federal agents would be problematic.</p> <p>Under federal statutes, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of his or her official duties <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF4zyY2Kd8&amp;list=PLZyloySS5-JSG8epr6kvgfSibXxwWVUZa&amp;index=16">gets removed to federal court</a>. In other words, the current structure of the legal system makes it virtually impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court. Lawyers for the charged federal agent would immediately make a motion to remove the case to a federal district court under <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj89u-EiIrYAhWKTSYKHfGGBSQQFggpMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F28%2F1442&amp;usg=AOvVaw2koNNAHVDjbbncXt0drNQ0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)</a>. Unless the state judge refused to comply, the case would then be out of state hands.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the threat of arrest would create problems for federal agents trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws in Wisconsin and would certainly gum up the works even if they were never prosecuted. The question is whether or not local law enforcement will be willing to enforce the law on federal officials.</p> <p><strong>REPUBLICAN STRATEGY</strong></p> <p>Given that Evers was almost certain to veto any effort to limit enforcement of federal gun control and considering the fact that the Republicans knew they couldn&#8217;t pass such a bill with a veto-proof majority, AB293 was clearly introduced and passed to make a statement. But why did Republicans choose to only ban enforcement of future federal gun control? Why not go all the way and refuse to enforce <em>all</em> federal gun control? Why the half-measure? Do Wisconsin Republicans believe that gun control that isn&#8217;t implemented by Joe Biden is somehow constitutional? Because it&#8217;s not.</p> <p>A bill limited to taking on future federal gun control only makes sense as a strategic first step. In some states, a more limited measure may be the best politically viable option. But if you&#8217;re just making a statement, and you know you&#8217;re just making a statement, why not go all the way and make a real statement? This bill makes little sense strategically. But Wisconsin Republicans certainly did make a statement &#8211; that they don&#8217;t care about all of the unconstitutional federal gun control enforced every single day in the Badger State.</p> <p><b>EFFECTIVE</b></p> <p>Despite Gov. Evers&#8217;s constitutional ignorance and spineless Republicans, state and local refusal to cooperate with federal actions provides a powerful tool to resist unconstitutional federal overreach.</p> <p>The provisions relating to firearms manufactured within the state would likely have little practical effect, but the ban on state and local enforcement of future federal acts that don’t conform to state law would make them nearly impossible to enforce in Wisconsin.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/vetoed-wisconsin-bill-to-end-support-for-future-federal-gun-control/">Vetoed: Wisconsin Bill to End Support for Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills AB293 Federal Gun Control second amendment Wisconsin Mike Maharrey