Tenth Amendment Remembered

...from Tenth Amendment Center American police have an institutional problem with violence. It flows out of the war on drugs which has led to the increasing militarization of police officers. If you keep telling cops they’re in a war, it comes as no surprise when they start to act like it. If you dress police like an occupying army, they're going to act like one. We've turned "protect and serve" into "command and control" @mmaharrey10th #policestate pic.twitter.com/OD52B8Or3d — TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) May 27, 2020 For Further Reading Weapons of War on our Streets: A Guide to the Militarization of Police Executive Order Takes Window Dressing off Police Militarization Program Department of Defense Writes to the Tenth Amendment Center on Police Militarization Mike Maharrey May 31, 2020 at 10:52AM

...from Tenth Amendment Center I think centralizing power is always a net loss for liberty. So did the founding generation. This is why the framers of the Constitution emphatically rejected a proposal to give the federal government veto-power over state laws. It’s also why the first Congress rejected applying some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. When I say this, it tends to confuse people because, in today’s political system, the federal government vetoes state laws all the time through federal courts. And virtually every time somebody perceives that a state government has violated their rights, they run straight to federal courts to stop the offending state action. Despite my protests, the application of the federal Bill of Rights to the states has become a key feature of the American political system. As I said, I believe this will ultimately prove to be a net loss for liberty. When you turn to federal courts to protect your liberty from state actions, you’re pl

...from Tenth Amendment Center NASHVILLE , Tenn. (May 30, 2020) – On Tuesday, a Tennessee House committee passed a “Constitutional Carry” bill that would make it legal for Tennessee residents to carry a firearm without a license in the state, fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control. Rep. William Lamberth (R-Portland) introduced House Bill 2817 ( HB2817 ) back in February. Sen. Jack Johnson (R-Brentwood) introduced the companion bill ( SB2671 ) in the Senate. The proposed law would make it legal for Tennessee residents 21 and older to carry a handgun without a permit. Tennesseans would still be able to get a concealed carry permit they can use to carry in other states that have reciprocity with Tennessee. On May 26, the House Judiciary Committee passed HB2817 by a 16-7 vote . EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL While  permitless carry  bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines fe

...from Tenth Amendment Center PHOENIX , Ariz. (May 30, 2020) – The Arizona House voted down a bill to reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws and prohibit the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction. The proposed legislation would have built on important reforms signed into law in 2017. Sen. Eddie Farnsworth (R-Mesa) introduced Senate Bill 1556 ( SB1556 ) on Feb. 4. The legislation would have reformed the state’s asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction before the prosecutors could begin forfeiture proceedings in most cases. The bill also included provisions that would increase protections for property owners involved in the forfeiture process. The Senate passed SB1556 with a floor amendment by a vote of 30-0 back in March, but on May 21, the House voted down the measure 37-23 . Arizona has some of the most onerous civil asset forfeiture laws in the country. Although prosecutors claim that drug kingpins and white-collar criminals are their prim

...from Tenth Amendment Center We have brought the founding generation’s greatest fear to life. That fear was centralization of power. One of the most forceful arguments against ratifying the Constitution revolved around what founders called “consolidation.” They feared that the new general government created by the Constitution would swallow up the states and effectively turn the United States into “one nation” with all power and authority flowing from the national government. Massachusetts ratifying convention delegate Fisher Aims warned, “A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution,” and said too much provision cannot be made against it. Patrick Henry offered an even more emphatic warning , telling the Virginia ratifying convention, ” Consolidation must end in the destruction of our liberties.” Today, their fears are reality. The federal government exercises almost complete control. It dictates everything from your healthcare to how much water flows in

...from Tenth Amendment Center On his 29th birthday – May 29, 1765 – Patrick Henry introduced a series of resolutions against the Stamp Act. In a speech the following day to encourage passage of the resolutions, Henry made his famous “If this be treason…” statement. A number of them passed, and even the ones the didn’t were widely published and helped spark the resistance. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: May 29, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe and Review on iTunes Patrick Henry: “If This Be Treason!” Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES Watch on LBRY Watch on Brighteon Watch on BitTube Watch on Bitchute Watch on Twitch.tv Watch on Periscope Watch on Facebook FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC: Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/ Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailyd

...from Tenth Amendment Center What does the Constitution mean, and who gets to decide? Such a question has been answered in written form by political pundits, lawyers, and academics. Most of these accounts, however, rely upon a pre-determined ideological narrative that routinely obfuscates an impartial view. Defying these trends, Mike Maharrey’s new work dares to answer the question by revisiting the writings and speeches of the ratification struggle and draws conclusions only through the records of the framework’s proponents. In the process, post-ratification legal precedents that contravene the original, widespread understanding – whether by executive action, federal laws, and high court decisions – are discarded entirely in an earnest effort to derive the truth. To the contrary of the common trope that the Constitution is merely a living, breathing instrument that can be contorted by the will of the federal government, Mike points out that the document is one of enumerated po

...from Tenth Amendment Center 1. As to elections for LOCAL & STATE offices (where no federal elections are on the ballot): What does your STATE CONSTITUTION say? Does it prescribe any particular “manner” of voting? “Manner of voting” refers to a requirement of personal presence at the place of voting and to a show of hands, or voice votes, or paper ballots, or voting machines; etc., OR voting by mail or by internet or by telephone, etc. The Laws made by your State Legislature respecting “manner of voting” must comply with your State Constitution, or the pretended laws are unconstitutional. So! For local & state offices where no federal office is on the ballot; the matter is determined solely by your STATE Constitution and the Statutes your STATE Legislature has passed. 2. As to elections for the FEDERAL House of Representatives or Senate: See  Article I, §4, clause 1, US Constitution : It provides that State Legislatures have the power to prescribe the “Times, Places, and

...from Tenth Amendment Center RICHMOND , Va. (May 26, 2020) – Last week, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam gave final approval to a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession with a recommended amendment despite federal prohibition. A bipartisan coalition of senators and representatives introduced House Bill 972 ( HB972 ) and Senate Bill 2 ( SB2 ) earlier this year. Under the law, marijuana will remain illegal in the state, but possession of up to an ounce of cannabis will now be a civil infraction subject to a $25 fine instead of a criminal offense. Under the old law, possession of a half-ounce or less is punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine. Possession of hash and other concentrates is a felony. The legislation also includes provisions to seal the records of past and future marijuana convictions and bars most employers from asking about marijuana convictions in the hiring process. The bill took a winding path to final approval. Different versions of the bill were ini

...from Tenth Amendment Center I hear a lot of bad constitutional arguments justifying this or that federal action. One common justification for expanding federal power is: “This thing is necessary! It needs to be done.” But it doesn’t follow that the federal government has to do the thing. In fact, the founding generation expected that the states and the people would do most of the “necessary things” – not the federal government. Tench Coxe was a prominent and influential advocate for ratification of the Constitution and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He later served as Secretary of the Treasury. He wrote three essays published in the Pennsylvania Gazette  in early 1788 under the pen-name “A Freeman.” In  these essays , Coxe offered some of the most forceful arguments asserting the limited nature of the federal government under the proposed Constitution. He insisted that many, if not most, of the “necessary” things for society would be take

...from Tenth Amendment Center Most people seem to want a king. Maybe not this king…but a king nonetheless. Just goes to show how far we’ve drifted from our founding principles. What do you call a president with vast executive powers who can dictate policy with the stroke of a pen? @mmaharrey10th pic.twitter.com/7GGdLMqunb — TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) May 18, 2020 For Further Reading Why the Tenth Amendment Should Trump Trump if You Want Liberty Constitution 101: Executive Power Does the Executive Branch Have Too Much Power? Presidential Tyranny 2.0: Executive Power as the Enemy of Freedom   Mike Maharrey May 26, 2020 at 10:46AM

...from Tenth Amendment Center Common, dangerous – and usually from friends to the Constitution and liberty. Path to Liberty: May 25, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe and Review on iTunes Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law 1813 Today in History: James Madison Vetoes Infrastructure Bill as Unconstitutional James Madison’s Constitution Two-Step Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 From James Madison to Henry Lee, 25 June 1824 ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES Watch on Brighteon Watch on BitTube Watch on Bitchute Watch on LBRY Watch on Twitch.tv Watch on Periscope Watch on Facebook Watch on DLive FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC: Become a Member: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/ Email Newsletter: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest Brave: Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC YouTube: https://www.youtu

...from Tenth Amendment Center Even though most Americans are obviously unhappy with the federal government, many of them don’t question the structure of the government itself. Their ire is directed toward officials, not the governmental structure that such officials manage. They are satisfied with how the federal government is structured and just want “better people” managing it. The irony is that if the type of federal governmental structure under which we live today had been proposed to the American people after the Constitutional Convention, there is no possibility that they would have approved it. They would have rejected the Constitution and, therefore, the federal government would never have come into existence. For some 10 years, Americans had been operating under a governmental structure known as the Articles of Confederation. Under this structure, there was a federal government but its powers were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax. Imagine that: 10 years

...from Tenth Amendment Center The Bill of Rights does not “give” us rights. It puts restrictions on the power of government to stop it from infringing rights we already have. They should have called it the Bill of Restrictions. You don't have "constitutional rights." You just have rights. @mmaharrey10th pic.twitter.com/n4eGhOnXcX — TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) May 13, 2020 For Further Reading Bill of Rights Ratified: Power Without Restraint is Tyranny There is No “But” in “Shall Not Be Infringed” Constitution 101: Bill of Rights Mike Maharrey May 23, 2020 at 10:46AM

...from Tenth Amendment Center In a previous  Constitution 101 post , I established that the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states. But lawyers and other supporters of federal courts policing rights at the state and local level will point to the 14 th  Amendment. They argue that it “incorporates” the Bill of Rights and applies it to state governments. It wasn’t until 1925, some 57 years after ratification, that the Supreme Court mystically found the concept of incorporation in the 14 th  Amendment. In the 1873  Slaughterhouse  case, the Court rejected the idea that the privileges and immunities clause in the 14 th  Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentione