In less than two months, an exciting new movement has captured the imagination of freedom-minded Americans all across our nation. This movement, often referred to as the “State Sovereignty Movement,” is more properly referred to as the “Tenth Amendment Movement,” because it is not a movement to affirm the absolute freedom and independence of each state, but instead a movement to restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government within the union in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.
The Oklahoma House of Representatives on February 18 became the first state legislative body this year to pass a resolution affirming its "sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." This resolution, HJR1003, was passed by the very lopsided margin of 83 to 13.
They beat him so badly they broke his bones. They cut him with a razor blade while pouring “hot, stinging liquid” in the wounds, chained him in cells with open sewage, kept him in total darkness for almost two years, and drugged and starved him, among other abuses. Why? Because he was a terrorist. Correction: he knew terrorists. OK, at least he was in the same country as terrorists.
Imagine that certain investors have set up a business under a charter and by-laws that specifically provide for a number of managers assigned to oversee various separate and independent branches of the company, all of whom must answer ultimately to the investors. One of the managers then announces that: (i) he alone will determine, not only when the other managers are not in compliance with the company's policies, but also what those policies actually are; (ii) the investors will have no say in the making of these determinations; and (iii) if the investors dissent from his unilateral determinations, their only recourse will be to re-write the company's charter and by-laws, subject to the manager's own interpretations of what such amendments mean. How long would any investors in their right minds tolerate such a topsy-turvy state of affairs? Yet this is precisely how the governments of the United States and the states operate under the contemporary doctrine of "judicial supremacy."
The left’s war against the Electoral College took on a steep up-tick when President Bush won the presidency while losing the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000. And it continues to pick up steam with new tactics. The modern incarnation of this movement is the “National Popular Vote” movement, which is attempting to get state legislatures to pledge to forego the votes of their people in favor of the national popular vote winner.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has ruled that telecommunications companies must assist the executive branch in wiretapping American citizens’ e-mail messages and phone calls, the New York Times reported on January 15. Although the decision didn’t deal directly with the constitutionality of warrantless wiretaps, the decision is troubling for a number of reasons.
This topic reminds me of the story about the national politician who campaigned on a party platform promoting the Welfare State. His stump speech was filled with promises of all the government services that he would fight for, if the voters would just elect him to Congress. He promised to meet all of the people’s needs relating to childcare, education, nutrition, housing, transportation, healthcare, pensions, and good-paying jobs for every citizen. Finally, at one town hall meeting, a boy raised his hand and asked, “Why would we need jobs?”
"Federalism" is one of those words that turns many readers aside, as it conjures up images of boring old theoretical interpretations of John Locke treatises. The reality of federalism is much more exciting than the theory — it is actually about the insatiable struggle for power between elites in the federal government and elites in the state governments. Money, power, secret tribunals, corruption: now those things are interesting.
On December 10 the Judiciary Committee of the Ohio House held a hearing on House Joint Resolution No. 8 (HJR 8), “Applying to the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution to call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments.” A couple days earlier an AP article had stated that there could be a “possible vote” on HJR 8 at the hearing. However, pro-constitution citizens, including members of the John Birch Society, Campaign for Liberty, and other like-minded groups, had been alerted about the hearing late in the preceding week.
Plaxico Burress and Francis Lewis, two prominent residents of the state of New York, lived three centuries apart. Burress is a New York Giants football player, and he was the star of football's Superbowl XLII, catching the winning touchdown for the Giants against the New England Patriots last year. Lewis was one of our Founding Fathers, a signer of the United States Declaration of Independence and a congressional representative. In many ways the two men are very different in terms of character, heritage, circumstances, profession, and temperament. Yet both surprisingly share several common threads beyond somewhat unusual names.
More than six years after they were thrown into a U.S. prison, the New York Times has reported that six Algerian detainees may finally get their day in court.