Tenth Amendment Remembered

...from Tenth Amendment Center BOSTON , Mass. (Oct. 21, 2017) – Last week, a Massachusetts joint legislative committee held a hearing on three bills that would take a first step toward limiting the impact of federal programs that militarize local police. Rep. Denise Provost (D-Middlesex) introduced House Bill 2503 ( H.2503 ) earlier this year. Sen. Michael Barrett (D-Third Middlesex) sponsors a Senate version of the legislation ( S.1277 ) A second House bill ( H.1276 ) sponsored by Rep. Mary Keefe (D-Worcester) has similar provisions. All three bills would prohibit law enforcement agencies from acquiring a long list of military equipment from federal surplus programs without local government approval. The legislation would also require state police to get approval from the legislature before obtaining military equipment. The law would apply both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government. The legis...

...from Tenth Amendment Center This is the 21st installment of a podcast following local activism efforts I am spearheading to address the surveillance state in Lexington, Ky. Through this series, you will get an inside look at boots-on-the-ground activism as it happens. The goal is to create a step-by-step how-to on tackling issues at the local level. You can access the other episodes  HERE . If you listened to episode #20 , you know the city of Lexington sued me over an open records request I made. As you can imagine, this has become a major focus of my life. Dealing with a lawsuit takes a lot of time and energy! In this installment of the Activism 101 podcast, I talk about the importance of keeping your focus on your activism plan and your ultimate goals when unexpected things (like a lawsuit) pop up in the midst of your work. SHOW NOTES Our Plan Episode #6: You Gotta Have a Plan Mike Maharrey October 21, 2017 at 02:12PM

...from Tenth Amendment Center On Oct. 12, 2017, Pres. Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) broadly intended to facilitate the sale of health insurance across state lines. Conservatives let out a collective cheer, believing the measure will lower the cost of health insurance, something the poorly named Affordable Care Act failed to do. But few even paused to consider the constitutional ramifications of the executive order. In fact, there exists little substantive difference between the Trump executive order and Pres. Obama’s 2012 EO that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Both measures used executive power to implement policies Congress had previously refused to approve. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the DACA EO a “unilateral executive amnesty,” and said Obama “deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an u...

...from Tenth Amendment Center “Local control” is something politicians promote or ignore at their convenience. The U.S. House of Representatives, led by a Republican majority supposedly dedicated to returning power to the states, just voted to  override state design and safety rules  for self-driving cars. In Colorado, opponents of hydraulic fracturing (fracking)  began touting “local control”  over fracking only when they lost a  bid for a statewide ban . And their so-called “local control” proposal would have allowed cities and counties only to tighten anti-fracking rules, not to loosen them. Political hypocrisy aside, keeping government close to the people is generally a good idea. Most of the famous bursts in human intellectual and technological progress have occurred in places featuring considerable — sometimes extreme — political decentralization. They have included the city states of ancient Greece and of Renaissance Italy, 17th and 18th century Brit...

...from Tenth Amendment Center The following post is excerpted from the script for Nullify: Season 1.  Watch all the videos from this series at this link  – and  Become a member here  to support the TAC. Some people say an 1830 letter from James Madison proves he opposed nullification in all situations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Writing to Edward Everett , the “Father of the Constitution” used phrases like “ overturn the first principle of free government ” and “ speedily put an end to the Union itself.” Most modern commentators and legal experts claim Madison was talking about nullification with a broad stroke. Because of this, they also claim nullification is always wrong, and should never be used, in any form. FACT: They’re either ignorant. Or lying. Everett asked Madison about a nullification doctrine proposed by John C. Calhoun for the State of South Carolina.  In order to understand Madison’s response, though, we must firs...

...from Tenth Amendment Center SACRAMENTO , Calif. (Oct. 18, 2017) – On Sunday, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that prohibits the state from cooperating with any federal efforts to create a database compiling personal information relating to a person’s religious beliefs, practices, or affiliations.The new law takes a step toward nullifying any attempts to create such a database. Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), along with a bipartisan coalition of 14 senators and assembly members, sponsored Senate Bill 31 ( SB31 ). Titled the California Religious Freedom Act, the new law prohibits any state or local agency in California, or any public employee acting under color of law, from releasing personal information to the federal government regarding the religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation of any individual for the purpose of compiling a list, registry, or database of individuals based on religious affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity. The law also bars...

...from Tenth Amendment Center EDITOR’S NOTE:  The following is the 20th in a  series of articles  giving an introduction to the Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. In Federalist #20 , James Madison, with some input from Alexander Hamilton, wraps up a series of essays all addressing the “insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve the Union.” In the process, he reveals a fundamental problem with all constitutional systems that plagues the United States today. In this essay, Madison specifically builds further on the foundation he laid in previous two. In Federalist  #18 , Madison argued allowing the states to retain too much autonomy, coupled with a weak central government, would ultimately lead to internal divisions and strife that would undermine the system. To make the case, he compared and con...