Tenth Amendment Remembered

...from Tenth Amendment Center Various police lobbies have aggressively opposed efforts to eliminate the qualified immunity defense. Along the way, they have told outright lies. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields cops from civil (not criminal) liability for actions taken in the line of duty unless they violate constitutional or statutory rights “clearly established” by existing judicial precedent. No statute exists granting qualified immunity. It evolved over time based on a series of Supreme Court cases . In 1982,  Harlow v. Fitzgerald   established qualified immunity for federal government officials and set the stage for the current definition of qualified immunity. The Court held that government actors are entitled to qualified immunity due to “the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority.” “Government officials performing discretionary ...

...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...

...from Tenth Amendment Center Conservatives have long opposed federal involvement in education. So why are they suddenly so gung-ho for federal involvement in policing? Centralizing power at the federal level is not “conservative.” Decentralization is always better – no matter what the issue. One-size-fits-all programs dictated by D.C. are a bad strategy. And almost always unconstitutional. @mmaharrey10th #10thAmendment #decentralize #federalism #constitution #liberty pic.twitter.com/DB7clNZ82L — TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) October 28, 2020 For Further Reading Trump’s Plan to Expand the National Police-State The System Is Rigged: Qualified Immunity Is How the Police State Stays in Power Weapons of War on our Streets: A Guide to the Militarization of Police Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces are Creating a National Police State A New “Surge” Expands Unconstitutional Federal Involvement in Local Police The post National Police Policies Are Not "...

...from Tenth Amendment Center Normally, when a person is nominated for the Supreme Court I examine his or her writings before commenting on the nomination. But I was on leave when President Trump nominated Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court, so I’m not going to assess her judicial ability. However, it is obvious that the president’s nomination of Barrett, like his nomination of Neil Gorsuch, adds diversity to the bench that it previously lacked. No, I’m not referring to gender or ethnic diversity. I’m referring to more basic kinds: viewpoint and experience. A lawyer’s viewpoint is shaped significantly by where he or she grew up, was educated, and practiced law. When President Trump took office, all justices were from the East Coast other than one from California (Kennedy). “Flyover country” was locked out. Similarly, every Supreme Court justice had attended Harvard or Yale Law Schools. (Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s degree was from Columbia, but she, too, attended Harvard for a time.) I...

...from Tenth Amendment Center “I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life.” – Murray Rothbard The terms “freedom” and “liberty” have become clichés in modern political parlance. Because these words are invoked so much by politicians and their ilk, their meanings are almost synonymous and used interchangeably. That’s confusing – and can be dangerous – because their definitions are actually quite different. “Freedom” is predominantly an internal construct. Viktor Frankl, the legendary Holocaust survivor who wrote Man’s Search For Meaning , said it well: “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any ...

...from Tenth Amendment Center You’ll often hear Micheal Boldin or me say we are facing the “biggest, most powerful government in the history of the world.” Is this just hyperbole? I don’t think it is. Consider the power the U.S. government wields globally. I’m not just talking about military power – although that is unmatched. Perhaps more significant is the economic power the United States wields. The world literally runs on dollars. The SWIFT system enables financial institutions to send and receive information about financial transactions in a secure, standardized environment. Since the dollar serves as the world reserve currency, SWIFT facilitates the international dollar system. That gives the U.S. the ability to effectively cut other countries off from the global economy. The U.S. has used this power to bend countries such as China, Russia and Iran to its foreign policy will. You could argue that the British Empire or the Roman Empire wielded similar power. But neither of...

...from Tenth Amendment Center The Feds are using the pandemic as an excuse to ID and track millions of innocent Americans’ cellphones inside their homes. This past August, a  Motherboard   article  revealed the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) had signed a $476,000 contract with  Venntel , a cellphone data mining corporation. Motherboard  went on to explain why the Feds signing a contract with Venntel is so troubling. “The news highlights how law enforcement agencies continue to buy data that may in some cases require a warrant or court order to obtain.” What  Motherboard is saying is that the CBP is using Venntel to monitor Americans’ cellphones without a warrant. “This new contract raises even more concerns about the cozy and ongoing relationship between the federal government and these data brokers, which operate in the shadows and can amass mountains of sensitive personal data without any restrictions,” Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney...

...from Tenth Amendment Center The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case challenging the legality of federal marijuana prohibition. Plaintiffs in the case include former NFL player Marvin Washington and a 12-year-old girl who uses medical marijuana to treat epilepsy. They claim that the DEA improperly classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug with no medical benefits. The plaintiffs claim that the Schedule I status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) violates due process because “it lacks a rational basis.” They also argued it creates serious health risks and unfair economic disadvantages. A federal district court held that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all of their “administrative remedies.” In effect, the court found that the plaintiffs had to seek administrative relief through existing channels such as petitioning the DEA directly to reclassify cannabis. “[P]laintiffs’ claim is an administrative one, not one premised on the constitution,” Judge Alvin ...

...from Tenth Amendment Center “But Mike,” you might say, “We the Constitution has to change with the times. The founders could have never imagined computers or airplanes.” This isn’t wrong. But there is in fact a way for the Constitution to “change with the times” without the living-breathing silliness relied on by people who are really just interested in a simple way to expand government power. A "living, breathing" constitution is really a dead one. @mmaharrey10th #truth #constitution #liberty #10thAmendment pic.twitter.com/NOZjNanmXY — TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) October 27, 2020 For Further Reading Constitution 101: Living and Breathing Is the Same as Dead Nine Reasons the “Living, Breathing” Constitution View Is a Lie The post A Living Breathing Constitution Is Silly first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center Blog . Mike Maharrey October 28, 2020 at 03:17PM

...from Tenth Amendment Center Opponents of nullification often cite James Madison – author of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 – as conclusive evidence that the doctrine is unconstitutional and should never be used in any situation. They primarily use his own words in 1830-1835 – but almost completely ignore the context of what he wrote. Path to Liberty: October 28, 2020 Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Podbean | Google | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS | More Platforms Here SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Nullification Made Easy Relying on Elections is a Bad Strategy Getting it Wrong: James Madison’s 1830 Letter on Nullification Edward Everett to James Madison (11 Apr 1830) James Madison to Edward Everett (28 Aug 1830) Jan 1830 – Webster Hayne Debate – Sen Robert Hayne of SC – 2nd Speech South Carolina Exposition and Protest – Response the 1828 Tariff of Abominations Webster’s reiteration Mark Levin Doubles Down on James Madison and Nullification. He’s Still Wrong Un...

...from Tenth Amendment Center We are in the midst of campaign season when Republicans and Democrats vying for various offices in Washington D.C. try to convince you that there’s a world of difference between them. When it comes to the really bad stuff, there's not a whole lotta difference between Republicans and Democrats that make it to the swamp. @mmaharrey10th #elections #truth #politics #liberty #constitution pic.twitter.com/gDR0ffWWwP — TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) October 26, 2020 But the truth of the matter is when it comes to the really bad things – there’s not that much difference between the two parties. They are really two sides of the same coin. For Further Reading Government Spying: A Bipartisan Affair Patriot Act Renewal: A Bipartisan Attack on Liberty Since Day One Big Spenders Get Worse Every Year: The History of Growth Since 1940 The post Not That Much Difference first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center Blog . Mike Maharrey O...

...from Tenth Amendment Center A draft report from the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice reveals the Trump administration’s plan to further expand the national police state, with an emphasis on supporting and expanding qualified immunity and facial recognition. The president formed the commission via executive order in January. A federal judge recently blocked the release of the commission’s report due to a lack of diversity on the panel and evidence that it operated in secrecy in violation of public meeting laws. The court order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (NAACP LDF). The suit claimed the commission failed to provide proper notice of public hearing and that it gave too much influence to law enforcement interests in violation of laws dictating how federal advisory committees must operate. According to a Reuters report , “The panel’s 18 commissioners include federal, state and local law en...

...from Tenth Amendment Center The Democrats are threatening to enact a court-packing law. They feel that Joe Biden, should he win the November 3 election, should be the one to name Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s replacement. The court-packing law would add additional justices onto the Supreme Court, all of whom would be appointed by Biden, which, obviously, would effectively nullify Barrett’s votes as well as the votes of other Republican-appointed members of the Court. The controversy brings to mind that infamous court-packing scheme of President Franklin Roosevelt, which ironically the mainstream press hardly ever alludes to during the current controversy over Barrett’s nomination. After Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1933, he began revolutionizing America’s economic system. Here was the advent of the modern-day welfare state, whose crown jewel became Social Security, a government program that originated among German socialists in the late 1800s and that was imported into America b...