Tenth Amendment Remembered

The effort to remember and reclaim the role of the several states; detailed in these several scenarios.

.

Tenth Amendment Center: Unconstitutional? Extra-Constitutional? What’s the difference?

Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

July 23, 2019

...from Tenth Amendment Center
You often hear that an action is “constitutional” or “unconstitutional.” More rarely, you hear the term “extra-constitutional.” Exactly how do these words differ? An action is constitutional if taken in accordance with a governing constitution. The governing constitution may be written or unwritten. In Britain, to become law a bill must pass the House of Commons and […]

July 23, 2019 at 11:28AM

Tenth Amendment Center

Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Tenth Amendment Center: Was Justice Scalia an Old Originalist?

September 28, 2017

...from Tenth Amendment Center One of the standard distinctions these days is between the old originalism and new originalism. While different people define the distinction a little bit differently, I define the old originalism as having two essential characteristics: using “original intent” to determine the original meaning of a provision and a belief that significantly constraining judges is essential to the task of originalism. The newer originalisms – I use the term “newer originalisms” rather than the “new originalism” because new versions of originalism differ from one another – have abandoned these two characteristics. The newer originalisms tend to focus on the original public meaning – focusing on a more textual than intentionalist approach. And the newer originalisms no longer hold (or act like) significantly constraining judges is essential. If the original meaning is permissive – if it is unclear, vague, or delegates power to judges – then that is the original meanin

Tenth Amendment Center: Thomas Jefferson’s Vision: Top-15 Quotes on the Constitution and Liberty

October 30, 2020

...from Tenth Amendment Center From the foundation of the Constitution – to foundational principles of liberty – and even some strategy to support and advance both – the top-15 quotes from the Sage of Monticello. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 30, 2020 Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Podbean | Google | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS | More Platforms Here SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Foundational Principles Free People – Summary View Rights of British America (1774) Elective Despotism – Notes on the State of Virginia (1784) Party – Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 Mar 1789) Tyrant’s Will – Letter to Issac H. Tiffany (4 Apr 1819) Aggression – Letter to Francis Gilmer (7 Jun 1816) Constitutional structure Foundation (15 Feb 1791) True theory – Letter to Gideon Granger (13 Aug 1800) Exclusive or Final Judge & Whensoever (1798) Warnings What has Destroyed Liberty – Letter to Joseph C. Cabell (2 Feb 1816) Oligarchy – Letter to Charles Jarvis (28 Sep

Tenth Amendment Center: Permission not Required: “Constitutional Carry” Bill Introduced in South Dakota

January 13, 2019

...from Tenth Amendment Center PIERRE , S.D. (Jan. 11, 2019) – A “Constitutional Carry” bill introduced in the South Dakota House would make it legal to carry a firearm without a license in the state, fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control. Sen. Lance Russell (R-Hot Springs) introduced Senate Bill 38 ( SB38 ) on Jan. 6, with eight cosponsors from both chambers. The bill seeks to repeal numerous sections of state law requiring state residents to have a license in order to carry a concealed weapon, while still allowing county sheriffs to issue permits. Under current state law , residents are required to have a conceal carry license to have a weapon in their vehicle. Former Gov. Dennis Daugaard rejected similar measures in the past, but with the election of Kristi Noem, supporters hope the legislation can be signed into law this time around. Gun shop owner Brandon Maddox told news station KSFY that a concealed carry permit is redundant. “I think that the second am

Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to our daily journal

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Get Our videos

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Posts

Atom

Posts

Comments

Atom

Comments

Tenth Amendment Center: Was Justice Scalia an Old Originalist?

September 28, 2017

...from Tenth Amendment Center One of the standard distinctions these days is between the old originalism and new originalism. While different people define the distinction a little bit differently, I define the old originalism as having two essential characteristics: using “original intent” to determine the original meaning of a provision and a belief that significantly constraining judges is essential to the task of originalism. The newer originalisms – I use the term “newer originalisms” rather than the “new originalism” because new versions of originalism differ from one another – have abandoned these two characteristics. The newer originalisms tend to focus on the original public meaning – focusing on a more textual than intentionalist approach. And the newer originalisms no longer hold (or act like) significantly constraining judges is essential. If the original meaning is permissive – if it is unclear, vague, or delegates power to judges – then that is the original meanin

Tenth Amendment Center: Thomas Jefferson’s Vision: Top-15 Quotes on the Constitution and Liberty

October 30, 2020

...from Tenth Amendment Center From the foundation of the Constitution – to foundational principles of liberty – and even some strategy to support and advance both – the top-15 quotes from the Sage of Monticello. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 30, 2020 Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Podbean | Google | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS | More Platforms Here SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Foundational Principles Free People – Summary View Rights of British America (1774) Elective Despotism – Notes on the State of Virginia (1784) Party – Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 Mar 1789) Tyrant’s Will – Letter to Issac H. Tiffany (4 Apr 1819) Aggression – Letter to Francis Gilmer (7 Jun 1816) Constitutional structure Foundation (15 Feb 1791) True theory – Letter to Gideon Granger (13 Aug 1800) Exclusive or Final Judge & Whensoever (1798) Warnings What has Destroyed Liberty – Letter to Joseph C. Cabell (2 Feb 1816) Oligarchy – Letter to Charles Jarvis (28 Sep

Tenth Amendment Center: Permission not Required: “Constitutional Carry” Bill Introduced in South Dakota

January 13, 2019

...from Tenth Amendment Center PIERRE , S.D. (Jan. 11, 2019) – A “Constitutional Carry” bill introduced in the South Dakota House would make it legal to carry a firearm without a license in the state, fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control. Sen. Lance Russell (R-Hot Springs) introduced Senate Bill 38 ( SB38 ) on Jan. 6, with eight cosponsors from both chambers. The bill seeks to repeal numerous sections of state law requiring state residents to have a license in order to carry a concealed weapon, while still allowing county sheriffs to issue permits. Under current state law , residents are required to have a conceal carry license to have a weapon in their vehicle. Former Gov. Dennis Daugaard rejected similar measures in the past, but with the election of Kristi Noem, supporters hope the legislation can be signed into law this time around. Gun shop owner Brandon Maddox told news station KSFY that a concealed carry permit is redundant. “I think that the second am

Tenth Amendment Center: This Is What Winning Looks Like!

January 13, 2019

...from Tenth Amendment Center When President Trump signed legislation legalizing industrial hemp into law, it was a huge win for liberty. And it happened because state’s acted first. Make no mistake; hemp isn’t federally legal now because Congress suddenly embraced the Constitution. Politicians in Washington D.C. didn’t drink some magic elixir that turned them into liberty-lovers. Congressional leadership didn’t wake up one morning and say, “Hey, I think we need to let go of some of our unconstitutional power.” Nope. Hemp is legal now because states nullified federal prohibition years ago. Up until 2014, it was pretty much impossible to legally grow hemp in the U.S. Farmers had to get a permit from the DEA, a nearly impossible feat. In 2014, provisions in the farm bill signed by President Obama opened the door for hemp. It allowed hemp production, but for research purposes only. Commercial production was still illegal. Even before the 2014 farm bill, a number of states ignored

Tenth Amendment Center: Missouri Bill Would Legalize Hemp, Set Stage to Nullify Federal Prohibition

January 15, 2018

...from Tenth Amendment Center JEFFERSON CITY , Mo. (Jan. 15, 2018) – A bill filed in the Missouri House would legalize industrial hemp, setting the stage to nullify federal prohibition of the plant in practice. Rep. Paul Curtman (R-Washington) introduced House Bill 2034 ( HB2034 ) on Jan. 10. The legislation would legalize industrial hemp in the state by removing it from the list of controlled substances. This would open the door for a full-scale commercial hemp market in Missouri by treating it as any other crop for farming. HB2034 would not require any license to grow hemp, and it would create no state regulatory structure. This would have a similar effect as a bill passed in Connecticut in 2015. In short, the state would treat industrial hemp like other plants, such as tomatoes. By ending state prohibition, residents in Missouri would have an open door to develop a commercial hemp market in the state, despite ongoing federal prohibition. FEDERAL FARM BILL In 2014, Congress

Tenth Amendment Center: Colorado Committee Passes Bill to Repeal High-Capacity Magazine Ban

March 26, 2018

...from Tenth Amendment Center DENVER , Colo. (March 26, 2018) – Last week, a Colorado Senate committee passed a bill that would repeal state prohibitions on high capacity magazines as well as a magazine date stamp requirement. Passage would not only remove restrictions currently imposed on Coloradans, it would also foster an environment hostile to federal gun control. Sen. Owen Hill (R-Colorado Springs) introduced Senate Bill 52 ( SB52 ) on Jan. 10. The legislation would repeal the current law banning high-capacity magazines. Under Colorado state law, magazines that allow more than 15 rifle rounds or 25 shotgun shells are prohibited. Selling, transferring or selling such a magazine is a class 2 misdemeanor. Another statute requires a date stamp on all magazines produced in the state after 2013 when the law took effect. Senate Bill 52 would repeal both these statues, protecting the gun rights of Colorado residents. On March 19, the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs C

Tenth Amendment Center: Today in History: Woodrow Wilson Signs the Federal Reserve Act

December 23, 2020

...from Tenth Amendment Center Today in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson. One of the most deplorable laws in the history of the United States, the act allowed for a cartel of banks to establish a legalized monopoly on the printing of currency, assured the continual artificial manipulation of interest rates, and perpetuated the most inequitable and callous of all taxes – inflation. Many of the founders were adamantly opposed to central banks for these precise reasons. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he considered such banks to be more dangerous than standing armies, and wrote that paper was the “ghost of money, and not money itself.” James Madison was equally disturbed by the emissions of paper money under the Articles of Confederation, remarking that “restraints against paper emissions and violations of contracts are not sufficient.” Under that system, the disastrous paper money experiment of the Continentals, along with inflationary state bills of cre

Tenth Amendment Center: The Struggle for American Independence: Parliamentary Sovereignty

May 31, 2018

...from Tenth Amendment Center In this episode, I cover the Parliamentary Sovereign doctrine and articulate why it is so integral to the entire struggle between the colonies and crown. Taxation was the flashpoint between colonists and the British government, but a deeper issue was underneath – Parliament’s power over the colonies and the rights of the colonists as Englishmen. The British position was the Parliament could legislate for the entire British Empire and was superior to colonial legislatures. That gave it absolute power over the colonies. But the colonists viewed things differently. In this episode, I compare and contrast these divergent points of view. WATCH Other recommended reading(s): -James Iredell, To the Inhabitants of Great Britain -Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America -William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England -Samuel Adams and James Otis, Massachusetts Circular Letter -Richard Bland, An Enquiry Into the Rights of

Tenth Amendment Center: Modern Nullification: A Winning Policy

August 17, 2017

...from Tenth Amendment Center Nullification is dead. At least that’s the opinion of Duke University Law School professor Ernest Young . But despite this emphatic epitaph, Young sees great potential for nullification as a tool to limit federal power. In a paper published in the Case Western Reserve Law Review , Young makes a strong case for nullification, highlighting state efforts that have effectively nullified federal marijuana prohibition. So, how can this be? How can nullification be simultaneously dead and buried, yet still a serve as a powerful tool to check federal overreach? The answer lies in the two distinct definitions of nullification. While “legal” nullification as laid out by John C. Calhoun may be dead, Young argues that nullification through non-cooperation, as recommended by James Madison in Federalist #46, remains a powerful means to confront overreaching federal authority. He even cites the Tenth Amendment Center’s definition of nullification – “any act or s

Tenth Amendment Center: North Dakota Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture, Effectively Shut Federal Loophole

January 13, 2019

...from Tenth Amendment Center BISMARCK , N.D. (Jan. 11, 2019) – A bill introduced in the North Dakota House would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction in most situations. Passage of the bill would also effectively close a federal loophole that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds. A coalition of 12 Republicans, including Senate President Pro Tempore and Majority Caucus Leader David Hogue, introduced House Bill 1286 ( HB1286 ) on Jan. 3. Under the proposed law, the state could not proceed with asset forfeiture until the owner of the property has been convicted of or pled guilty to a criminal offense in most cases. HB1286 would also raise the standard of proof necessary in forfeiture cases to “clear and convincing evidence.” The bill would also fully close the federal “equitable sharing” loophole in North Dakota with the following languag

Search This Blog

Labels

Tenth Amendment Center

.

Tenth Amendment Center: Unconstitutional? Extra-Constitutional? What’s the difference?

Popular posts from this blog