NOTE: Tom Woods will be the evening keynote speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

No one doubts that our understanding of historical figures may need to be revisited from time to time. But academic specialists have been known to overreach. To portray a historical figure in a light exactly opposed to the popular impression and to how all other scholars have viewed him is far more exciting than repeating the boring conventional wisdom. And if you can contrive a case that an admired statesman from history actually supported your own views after all, all the better.

Poor Thomas Jefferson has suffered this kind of treatment at the hands of countless historians, and Marco Bassani, a scholar of the history of political thought, will have none of it. Bassani, an American-born professor teaching at the University of Milan, takes ruthless aim at what has been called the “scholars’ Jefferson,” who bears scant resemblance to the classical liberal figure of the popular mind. Jefferson is one of those cases in which — in terms of his views on property, states’ rights, the Union, political majorities, and the Constitution — the earlier, conventional view was in fact the correct one. Bassani’s wide-ranging knowledge of Jefferson scholarship serves him well in Liberty, State, & Union: The Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson, as he carefully describes and then refutes the competing schools of thought.

Here’s my review of Bassani’s book.

Both James and Robert will be featured speakers at Nullify Now! Philadelphia on March 31, 2012. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

NOTE: Joshua Lyons will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

What government does U.S. Bill Of Rights limit?

We must start on our quest by determining who ratified the U.S. Constitution; was it ratified by individuals or the States?

The first answer can be found in Article VII of the U.S. Constitution itself:

“The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.” [Emphasis added.]

The second answer can be found in the journal of the convention, which records only the votes of the States. Once more, it was the States (not individual delegates) that cast the votes in the convention. Additionally, each State specified what portion of its delegation needed to be present to act and cast the States’ vote.

If you’re asking yourself what this has to do with the applicability of the U.S. Bill of Rights, just stay with me…we’re getting there.

It is also critically important to understand the structure and construction of the U.S. Constitution before attempting to read and interpret it. So what was the purpose of drafting and ratifying the U.S. Constitution?  Very simply, the purpose was to define and limit the authority of the Federal government; and as Madison specified in Federalist 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [Emphasis added.]

Further, Article VI Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the authority delegated to the Federal government is supreme:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [Emphasis added]

But while the U.S. Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land, this is entirely different than the Federal government being supreme in everything it does.

To be sure that the federal government’s authority was limited to the powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution, many states ratification was contingent upon amendments being passed including what became the 10^th Amendment (which Jefferson considered the “foundation” of the Constitution):

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people“[Emphasis added.]

The ultimate check on Federal power by a State can be uncovered with a quick read of the State ratifying resolutions (e.g. Virginia, New York, Rhode Island). These resolutions illustrate the fundamental right of rescission (i.e.  Powers delegated to the Federal government can be reassumed). Take the New York ratification resolution for example:

“That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same…” [Emphasis added.]

Let’s review:

The U.S. Constitution is a compact between the States.

The limited authority delegated to the Federal government is enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

The States created the Federal government to be an agent of the States to carry out limited powers.

The States have the legal authority to reassume powers delegated to the Federal government.

After reflecting on all of these rather clear-cut facts, one must question why would the States create an agent (i.e. the Federal government) to limit the States power?

An objective person must come to the obvious conclusion that the States did no such a thing; especially after that same person reads the beginning of the almost-forgotten Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” [Emphasis added.]

Regardless if one thinks that it is a good measure to have the Federal government policing the States for any signs of them infringing on the states citizens’ inalienable rights (federalism anyone?), the fact remains that the Bill of Rights was drafted to further clarify limitations on the Federal government, not the States.

Wait…did I just hear someone ask about the “Incorporation Doctrine?”

Joshua Lyons is the co-host of The Forgotten Men radio show Saturdays at 12noon ET, on AM930 WFMD. The Forgotten Men focus on the current political and economic challenges through the lens of the Constitution and Federalism.

For Immediate Release:March 28, 2012

All eyes turned toward the Supreme Court this week, as justices began hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But is the SCOTUS the final chance for health care opponents? “No!” say Nullify Now! organizers. The states can and will stop mandates, indefinite detention, and more.

The health care act clearly violates the fundamental principle of constitutional government spelled out by James Madison in Federalist 45.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite…The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.

But what if the Supreme Court rules the PPACA constitutional anyway? Do the states and people simply sit back and accept it? Or does a mechanism to protect their basic rights remain? What happens when the Court joins the Congress and the president in claiming powers not delegated?

Thomas Jefferson said nullification is “the rightful remedy.”

But what exactly is nullification? What are its origins and history? Can states really declare a law unconstitutional, null and void within its own borders?

The Nullify Now! Tour answers these questions.

The national program, sponsored by the Tenth Amendment Center and the Foundation for a Free Society, will roll into the Crowne Plaza Hotel, on Saturday, March 31. Featuring Harvard and Columbia University educated historian Thomas Woods Jr. Ph.D., and Sheriff Richard Mack as keynote speakers, the presentation will weave together a logical, moral, and constitutionally sound case for nullification through historical writings, case studies and the words of the founders.

“Nullification isn’t some mystical legal principle buried in cobweb covered books. In fact, it’s so simple, a toddler can do it. You can explain it in one word – No!” TAC communications director Mike Maharrey said. “It’s a principle rooted in the Constitution and woven into the philosophical foundation of the United States. The Nullify Now! presentation makes the case for nullification in an entertaining and captivating way.”

The Nullify Now! Event begins at 9 a.m.

For more information, log on to www.nullifynow.com/Philadelphia

Media credentials providing full access to the event and speakers available upon request.

###

The Tenth Amendment Center exists to promote and advance a return to a proper balance of power between federal and State governments envisioned by our founders, prescribed by the Constitution and explicitly declared in the Tenth Amendment. A national think tank based in Los Angeles, the Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect the principle of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism.

NOTE: Tom Woods will be the evening keynote speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

That poor soul from the other day who insisted Lincoln never said that blacks shouldn’t be voters or jurors, or intermarry with white people, or that he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it existed, still thinks the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes state nullification unconstitutional.

The Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. It reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

“Grand Old Partisan” takes this to mean:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws, whether or not in pursuance of the Constitution… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

In other words, he accepts the interpretation current in American law schools. I do not intend this as a compliment.

Here’s what the people were told it meant at the state ratifying conventions, which is what matters. (I’ll be a sport and not even mention the proto-nullification arguments made at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, which settle the argument, though you can get the story in my Nullification or in Kevin Gutzman’s James Madison and the Making of America.)

Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).

In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”

Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).

James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

For more on this, see Brion McClanahan’s Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution.

NOTE: Tom Woods will be the evening keynote speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here - http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ - or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

Today I had someone tweet me this message: “Nullification is idiotic and unconstitutional.”

Not an unusual opinion, to be sure; it’s held by the New York Times, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton. My critic, such as he is, has simply absorbed all the presuppositions of the modern state, in which nullification is indeed “idiotic.” For the modern state is one and indivisible, with a single, infallible authority dictating orders to all subordinate institutions. My critic believes in the Hobbesian model of political association, as do 99 percent of his fellow countrymen – who, like him, have absorbed it without thinking. They don’t even know they’ve absorbed it, so ubiquitous has it become in modern Western political thought.

So when someone comes along and challenges these assumptions, all my critic can do is shout at the heretic.

I told him that as soon as he can reply to my “Nullification: Answering the Objections,” he should let me know. I will not hear from him again.

What I found especially interesting was this: on his blog, he criticizes people who have written to him with unkind words about Abraham Lincoln. Let me allow my critic to speak for himself:

Not content to recycle the same-old same-old absurd insults (dictator, tyrant, warmonger, racist and so on), some of these ranters cite bogus Lincoln quotes floating around the internet, such as:

“I have no intention of interfering with slavery or freeing the slaves. The white race is supreme and blacks will never marry whites, serve on juries or vote. This is my firm belief.”

Of course, Abraham Lincoln never said this or wrote this or even thought this. Ronald Reagan (R-CA) had these words of advice for anyone who feels compelled to malign Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President:

Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.

And that includes Abraham Lincoln! Reagan’s 11th Commandment. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Now this is funny. “Abraham Lincoln never said this or wrote this or even thought this”? True, the blogger’s paraphrase of Lincoln is not the precise word order the sixteenth president used. But has he never read the Lincoln-Douglas debates? (I ask rhetorically.) There, Lincoln said:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

As for slavery, Lincoln said in his First Inaugural (you can see I’ve had to dig into some obscure sources to find Lincoln’s views): “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

So poor Grand Old Partisan, as he calls himself, is demolished. Lincoln said precisely the things this critic claims Abe never said, wrote, or even thought. These are facts one could gather by reading any book about Lincoln at all.

At the end of the passage I reproduced from his blog, we’re treated to the Stalinist line that politicians, as long as they belong to a certain political party, should never be criticized. So when your fourth-grade textbook tells you all about your heroic overlords, you are supposed to shut up and salute.

Why am I not surprised that someone with this mentality opposes nullification?

NOTE: Tom Woods will be the evening keynote speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here - http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ - or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

My 2011 book Rollback was packaged all wrong. The publisher pitched it to Tea Party people, which could have been all right except the book was therefore portrayed as just another attack on Obama, or (even worse) a book on the federal budget (zzzzzzzz).

All last year I had to struggle against the marketing and packaging for the book, in order to convey what it was really about. It finally became exhausting.

Contrary to the impression given in promotional material, and on Amazon, here are the kinds of things you can expect to find in it:

• Could we survive without the welfare state?
• Was the Industrial Revolution a disaster for workers, and evidence of the wickedness of the free market?
• The market vs. global poverty
• How the market, in spite (not because) of government, leads to higher living standards for everyone
• How the market leads to improved working conditions and does away with child labor
• Federal education programs: a critique
• Doesn’t Sweden prove a large welfare state is compatible with lasting prosperity?
• If government shrinks, won’t big business fill the void and oppress the public via predatory pricing?
• Why it’s impossible to design a wealth redistribution program that does not cause net harm
• The truth about “affordable housing” programs
• Iceland and the financial crisis: a case study of free markets run amok?
• California energy “deregulation” – proof that free markets don’t work?
• Is the Savings & Loan (S&L) crisis evidence of the failure of free markets?
• The real record of Sarbanes-Oxley
• OSHA and workplace safety
• The FDA
• Don’t we need to make an exception for government science funding?
• A primer on the War on Drugs
• Obamacare: the problems and the solution
• Why “stimulus” programs make things worse
• How prudential regulation contributed to the financial crisis
• Are some firms “too big to fail”?
• The real story of “deregulation” and the financial crisis
• Is Paul Krugman right to absolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of blame?
• The military-industrial complex and the U.S. economy
• Has the Federal Reserve really made the U.S. economy more stable, as so many proponents try to claim?
• What caused the bank panics of the nineteenth century? Are they evidence of the need for a central bank?
• The separation of money and state
• Do we need the Fed to protect us from deflation?
• Regulation as an anti-competitive device
• Possible approaches: agorism, jury nullification, Free State Project, and more

For a mere eleven smackers, it’s yours.

NOTE: Michael Boldin will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of several parts of the “Obamacare” health care package. While the President and his allies managed to force this health care package on the American people two years ago, there’s now a chance to get it overturned.

How big of a chance? Almost none.

The unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers which make up the Supreme Court have done an absolutely horrible job of upholding the Constitution. In fact, from 1937-1995 the Supreme Court didn’t rule one single congressional act to be outside of their constitutional limits. 60 years – they ruled absolutely nothing unconstitutional, and that included much of the new deal and all of the Great society. Since that time, overruling Congress has been a rare occurrence, at best.

Not a good track record at all.

At times, I would argue that the Supremes have actually created most of the problems we face today. Why? Because they don’t like overturning their own decisions either. One ruling expands federal power, and the next one almost always seems to be based off the previous.

Bad building blocks make for a dangerous foundation.

And on top of it all, because of the way things have worked in this country for a long time, most people believe that they only have 3 options to stop federal power –

1) protesting and marching on DC in the hopes that federal politicians will limit their own power
2) voting the bums out, in the hopes that the new bums will limit their own power and
3) suing in court in the hopes that federal judges will limit federal power.

Sorry to break this to you, but it ain’t working.

For over 100 years, federal power has been on one path, and one path alone. It doesn’t matter which political party has been in charge in DC or which individual has been president – federal power always grows and your liberty is always less.

George Will wrote in a column recently that “if the court were to ratify Congress’ disregard for settled contract law, Congress’ power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point. Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government.”

Sorry George, you’re wrong. We’ve been there for a long time already.

When the federal government claims the power to determine the extent of its own powers – unlimited government is already here.

Now if you happen to think, for some crazy reason, that claiming the power to tell you what size toilet you can have, what kind of light bulb you can own, or what kind of plant you can grow in your backyard it NOT unlimited power, it’s just a matter of time before politicians decide to start using the power they already have to do things that YOU consider unlimited. It’s just a matter of time.

So, as the last 100+ years of nearly incessant growth of federal power proves to us already, even IF the supremes do the rare thing and rule against Congress, in a decade that’ll be just a blip.

Without changing strategies – and stopping the insanity of going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government – the freight train to totalitarianism will be unstoppable.

Instead of begging, yet again, federal politicians to limit their own power, how about something different?

That’s what we’ll be educating people about at Nullify Now! Philadelphia on March 31st. Multiple speakers and experts will teach you about what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advised when 2 or more branches of the federal government attack the constitution and your liberty.

The States. They not only have a right, but a duty, to stand up and say NO to unconstitutional federal acts. Most of what the feds do qualifies.

Please join us in Philly on March 31st – you won’t just be educated. You’ll be empowered.

http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/

NOTE: Blake Filippi will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

My name is Blake Filippi, director of the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition and spokesman for the Tenth Amendment Center.

In 1850, when Congress passed what was known as the “Fugitive Slave Act,” the federal law compelled people of all states to assist federal agents with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves and brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for suspected slaves, and made their testimony non-admissible in court.

This was an atrocity.

But the people of the states didn’t just stand there and take it. In the ensuing years, states all over the North began passing what were known as “Personal Liberty Laws” – rejecting such claims of federal power and reasserting the state’s role in protecting the rights of people. Massachusetts went so far as to consider such federal acts to be the crime of kidnapping – and after passing their Personal Liberty Law, not one single escaped slave was returned to the South under the Fugitive Slave Act.

While that horrible part of American history is gladly long gone, due process is still under attack by the Federal Government today. And in the spirit of the heroic abolitionists in states like Wisconsin, Maine, and many others – today, we call upon states across the nation to pass the Liberty Preservation Act – to reject the so-called “indefinite detention” powers of the NDAA.

In partnership with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Demand Progress , we hope to expand this effort beyond the 10 local communities which have already passed such legislation – and the 11 states moving to consider it already – and blanket the entire country with a defense of liberty until “indefinite detention” is thrown to the dustbin of history.

thank you.

NOTE: The following is a statement from Kitchen Table Patriots. We’re honored and grateful that this group has signed on as a supporter of Nullify Now! Philadelphia on March 31, 2012. Get your tickets online here – http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS.

*******

The Kitchen Table Patriots are strong supporters of the 10th amendment. It is our contention that the states have abdicated their predominant role in providing the governing framework for its citizens. They have done this in exchange for the money that Washington entices them with while simultaneously taking on the responsibility for programs that they have little or no flexibility in administering. Most of the functions that the Federal government have assumed sovereignty for are antithetical to the principles of Article 1, Section 8 and the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution.

We are also aware that most state officials have a national rather than a federal/compact view of the power and authority of Washington, DC. Most of them are averse to taking a contrarian view of Constitutional interpretation resting solely in the Supreme Court. Most of them believe that the states and citizens are subjects of Washington, DC and that they have no responsibility to intercede on behalf of the states or its citizens. More often than not they perceive no limitations on the authority of either the state of federal governments.

We have taken the position that the citizens need to become directly involved in the business of government in order to regain their own sovereignty; they need to be aware and vocal with all elected officials. We regularly provide opportunities for the uninitiated to learn about how the political parties and government works. We also take an active role in brokering and networking citizens with the politicians. We provide candidate forums, networking socials and also directly engage politicians through citizen lobbying efforts.

An informed and engaged citizenry are the key to reclaiming the liberty and freedoms that have been usurped by politicians looking out for their own self interest rather than those of the people that they are charged to represent.