Tag Archives: Tenth Amendment

Exactly Where Do We Go After Roe v. Wade?

Posted on by

The overturning of Roe v. Wade was a constitutional victory as well as a moral one. The federal government has no business getting involved in abortion. Of course the federal government is involved in a lot of things it shouldn’t be involved in (according to the Tenth Amendment), so I guess it was not unusual that it would be involved in abortion. It is a difficult issue, and pro-life Republicans need to proceed carefully when speaking about it. I believe that the ‘pro-life’ position is the correct one, but again, we need to be careful when we speak. A Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion would be as unconstitutional as Roe v. Wade. This is truly a matter that should be left to the states.

On Monday, The Daily Wire posted an article about a recent interview of President Trump by NBC’s Kristen Welker.

The article reports:

“The radical people on this are really the Democrats that say after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, nine months, and even after birth, you’re allowed to terminate the baby,” Trump told Welker during the interview.

“Mr. President, Democrats aren’t saying that,” Welker responded.

Moments later Trump said, “I said with Hillary Clinton when we had the debate, I made a statement, ‘rip the baby out of the womb’ in the ninth month. You’re allowed to do that, and you shouldn’t be allowed to do that.”

“Again, no one is arguing for that. That’s not a part of anyone’s platform, Mr. President,” Welker said.

Besides the untold number of abortion activists who advocate for abortion on demand up to birth, a slew of states currently allow abortion at any point in the pregnancy.

Alaska, Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. all allow abortion with no gestational limits.

While high-profile Democrats often hedge on whether they support any gestational limits on abortion, some have come right out and admitted they support abortion up to the moment of birth.

Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) was direct about his stance during a Fox News segment in June.

“Is there a cutoff for you before [the due date]?” host Shannon Bream asked Cardin.

“No, to me, it’s a reproductive, it’s a health care decision. It’s up to women to make that decision,” Cardin responded.

If President Trump had not had the information at hand about abortion, the viewers would have been left with the impression that he was not telling the truth. Truth is only one on many ways to fight the abortion lobby.

The Power Of The States

Posted on by

On Monday, Daniel Horowitz posted an article at The Conservative Review about the power of State Sovereignty. Our current administration (and many administrations before them) have chosen to ignore the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment states:

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.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article–it contains some interesting information about what is currently happening in Canada that we can learn from.

The article notes:

Last week, I posted a comprehensive analysis of the scope of power Republicans hold in state government and how they are likely to dramatically expand it. Between trifecta control and supermajorities in legislatures, they could conceivably hold the power to pass legislation unchallenged by Democrats in at least 30 states. As such, when national Republican leaders lament the limits of their power to check the Biden administration in Washington for lack of full control of government, we must remind them it doesn’t absolve the party of its duty to enforce the Constitution in the states Republicans control.

What does that look like? Governors and legislators need to announce that when the federal government seeks to violate the Constitution, statutes, the rights of the people, or the social compact itself by openly engaging in destruction of our food, energy, and natural resources, those policies will be blocked in the states.

Practically, what does that mean?

The first bill all GOP-controlled legislatures should pass when most of them convene in January is a law allowing them via concurrent resolution to declare a federal policy, regulation, or statute unconstitutional. That would automatically, pursuant to this law, have the effect of criminalizing the enforcement of that policy within the state’s boundaries by any state or local official or state-funded NGO. It would also call upon the state law enforcement agencies to work directly with the governor to, with all practicable means, block any attempts of federal officials to enforce those edicts.

On specific issues, this means:

    • All federal policies regarding transgenderism cannot be enforced.
    • All federal policies concerning medical mandates, surveillance, or public health policies deemed harmful or unconstitutional are prohibited.
    • All federal policies locking up state fuel, food, or natural resources are suspended.
    • All FBI raids on residents of the state that are prima facie political persecutions when no allegation of violence is brought are illegal and will be thwarted by all means possible.
    • All cooperation with federal law enforcement on surveillance, information sharing, or apprehension of political opponents is suspended.

Please read the rest of the article– it may hold the solution to the current lawlessness in Washington.

Has This Lady Read The U.S. Constitution?

Posted on by

On Friday, The Hill posted an article about a recent comment by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.

The article reports:

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said on Thursday at a conference that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is tied to its conformity to public opinion, Reuters first reported.

“I’m not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that’s a dangerous thing for a democracy,” Kagan said at a judicial conference in Montana.

…Kagan said at the conference that the court earns its legitimacy by remaining impartial and nonpartisan.

“Overall, the way the court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court, is by doing the kinds of things that do not seem to people political or partisan,” she said.

Kagan referenced times in history when Supreme Court justices failed to discipline themselves and instead “attempted to basically enact their own policy or political or social preferences,” saying that this puts court legitimacy at risk.

This is an amazing statement. The only thing the Supreme Court is required to be tied to is the U.S. Constitution.

On Saturday, Ed Morrissey posted the following at Hot Air:

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said on Thursday that it would be a “dangerous thing for a democracy” if the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court loses the confidence of the American public.

Speaking in public for the first time since the court’s momentous ruling last month that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, Kagan stressed the importance of the justices staying in their proper roles as judges and not dictating public policy.

The problem with Roe v. Wade actually had very little to do with abortion. The problem with Roe v. Wade was the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment states:

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.

Abortion is an issue that needs to be determined by every state–by legislators voted in by the people of that state and answerable to the people of that state. The Supreme Court simply overturned a decision that was unconstitutional. They did not end abortion–they simply left it up to each state to make the laws that the people in that state want.

Wow! An Incredible Coincidence!

Posted on by

There have been a lot of incredible coincidences regarding the Biden family and those chosen for positions in the government under the Biden administration. The latest involves choosing someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created when Justice Breyer retires.

On Saturday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about one possible choice to serve on the Supreme Court.

The article reports:

The Biden administration confirmed a U.S. South Carolina District Court judge backed by U.S. Rep. James Clyburn is among those considered to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. 

Michelle Childs, 55, was tapped for a promotion last month by President Joe Biden to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but the nomination has been postponed as she is now in consideration for the highest court in America after Biden vowed to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court in February. 

It came as part of a deal Biden struck with Clyburn, who previously chaired the Congressional Black Caucus and offered his endorsement for Biden in 2020 with a caveat – that the then-candidate publicly pledge to place a black woman on the Supreme Court should he get the chance in his tenure. 

…Childs had earned criticism after her September 2020 decision to kill a measure in South Carolina’s new elections bill that would have tightened security on mail-in ballots, which was believed to tip the favor for Democrats. 

Before the 2020 election, the South Carolina legislature passed a bill allowing all voters to vote absentee regardless of their reason in a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but an amendment to remove a provision requiring a witness signature failed.

Childs upheld the law but struck down the signature requirement in a decisive victory for state and national Democrats who voted by mail at a higher rate than Republicans. 

It was swiftly overturned by the Supreme Court in early October.

Childs had also demonstrated a significant deference to Congress during her 2010 confirmation hearing the the South Carolina US District Court – indicating she may give federal lawmakers the benefit of the doubt on some occasions.

When asked by Senator Dianne Feinstein about her understanding of Congressional authority as given by the Constitution, the Childs had said: ‘With respect to any laws respecting your Congressional powers, I would presume that anything that you all are doing is constitutional and would approach it with that mindset, knowing that you would only enact laws that you have had due deliberance over and consider deliberation over.’ 

It sounds as if the judge has not read the Tenth Amendment. If you remember, the South Carolina primary was the turning point in winning the Democrat presidential nomination for Joe Biden. U.S. Rep. James Clyburn played a major role in that victory. Now it’s payback time.

 

I Hate To Be Paranoid, But This Scares Me To Death

Posted on by

On Friday, The American Thinker posted an article about New York State Bill A416, which would provide amazing power to the Governor of New York and members of the administrative state.

The article reports:

In roughly three weeks, the New York state legislature will vote on Bill A416, which will give the New York governor (in this case, the power-mad Kathy Hochul), as well as the governor’s delegates (i.e., New York’s administrative state) the power to indefinitely detain anyone the governor or her agencies deem a “significant threat to public health.” Despite the broad power states have, this violates the Constitution. At a practical level, it should scare the pants off every American.

There is absolutely no doubt that, under our Constitution, the states have powers that the federal government lacks. The federal government is explicitly a creature of very limited powers, while the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that those limited powers not reserved to the federal government belong to the state “or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment, however, does not mean that states can play the dictator. Indeed, since the Civil War, states have been subject to the same constraints as the federal government when it comes to using its police power over the people within its borders. Thus, the second sentence in the Fourteenth Amendment states explicitly that

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Among the privileges Americans have is a pivotal one in the Fifth Amendment assuring us that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” That deprivation is precisely what New York state contemplates.

The article notes:

No matter the language in the bill, given that the New York governor has the uncontested power to declare a health emergency, people are at risk. If you’re wondering what that looks like, look to Victoria, in Australia. There, people are locked up in concentration camps for the mere suspicion of having COVID.

And again, it cannot be said often enough that this is a disease with an average mortality rate hovering around 1% (a rate that could be even lower if people were allowed treatment with Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine early in their diagnosis). By way of contrast, this is not AIDS, which entered the West with a 100% mortality rate but never resulted in such a draconian response.

If we don’t wake up and stand up quickly, we will lose our freedom and our country.

Fighting Back

Posted on by

Yesterday Trending Politics reported that 13 states are suing the Biden administration because of the clause in the Covid Relief Bill that prevents states from lowering taxes if they receive aid.

The article quotes The Daily Caller:

The Daily Caller reports: “The 13-state coalition argued that the provision included in the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package preventing states from cutting taxes if they accept relief from the federal government is unconstitutional. The coalition, led by Republican West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday evening in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.”

In a statement released on Wednesday, Morrisey said, “Never before has the federal government attempted such a complete takeover of state finances. We cannot stand for such overreach.”

…The lawsuit explains that the tax provision is “one of the most egregious power grabs” in U.S. history, adding that the Tenth Amendment doesn’t allow the federal government to stretch their authority like the Biden Administration is doing.

The lawsuit is needed. The provision in the bill is definitely government overreach.

Will The Tenth Amendment Stand?

Posted on by

The American Spectator posted an article today about the recently passed coronavirus relief bill.

The article reports:

Well, that didn’t take long. The first major bill passed by the new Democratic congressional majority and signed into law by our new president on March 11 had already provoked a constitutional challenge by March 17. The attorney general of Ohio filed suit against the Biden administration last Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) unconstitutionally and coercively limits the right of states to manage their internal fiscal policies: “This suit challenges an unconstitutional provision in the American Rescue Plan Act — a provision that allows the federal government to commandeer state taxing authority.”

If the use of “commandeer” in this context seems vaguely familiar, it’s probably a vestigial memory of the Obama administration’s failed attempt to exert equally questionable control over state budgets using the mandatory Medicaid provision of Obamacare. Fortunately, in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that such coercion is unconstitutional. Ohio’s ARPA challenge involves a provision whereby $195.3 billion in fiscal recovery aid will be distributed among the states and the District of Columbia. Beyond its effect on the federal budget deficit, this doesn’t seem particularly pernicious. The real problem arises from the restrictions the provision imposes on the power of the states to reduce taxes:

A State or territory shall not use the funds provided under this section or transferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue of such State or territory resulting from a change in law, regulation or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase.

This constitutionally dubious language was inserted into the legislation by the Democrats at the last minute, the New York Times reports, for the express purpose of interfering with the ability of the states to make changes in their tax codes. It is a deliberate and insolent attack by the federal government on state sovereignty and the doctrine of federalism. As Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost puts it in his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, “The Tax Mandate thus gives the States a choice: they can have either the badly needed federal funds or their sovereign authority to set state tax policy. But they cannot have both. In our current economic crisis, that is no choice at all. It is a metaphorical ‘gun to the head.’ ”

The coronavirus relief bill actually punishes fiscally responsible states and rewards fiscally irresponsible states, so it is no surprise that the law would actually limit the ability of states to improve their economies by lowering taxes. In the world envisioned by the current Democrat party, we would all pay more taxes and government would have more control over our lives. Never in the history of America have Americans been given government guidelines as to their activities in their own backyards on Independence Day. I fear that this is only the beginning of the power grab by those currently in control of Washington.

This Could Get Very Interesting

Posted on by

WND reported yesterday that lawmakers in North Dakota are proposing a law allowing the state to ignore presidential executive orders if they don’t meet constitutional muster. Actually all states should do that!

The Tenth Amendment states:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The article reports:

House Bill 1164, introduced for the 2021 session, says the “legislative management may review any executive order issued by the president of the United States which has not been affirmed by a vote of the Congress of the United States and signed into law as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States and recommend to the attorney general and the governor that the executive order be further reviewed.”

It also allows for a review of an executive order by the attorney general “to determine the constitutionality of the order and whether the state should seek an exemption from the application of the order or seek to have the order declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority by the president.”

It states that “political subdivision” can implement such an order “that restricts a person’s rights or that the attorney general determines to be unconstitutional under subsection 1 and which relates to: a. pandemics or other health emergencies; b. the regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil; c. the regulation of the agriculture industry; d. the use of land; 3. The regulation of the financial sector… or; f. the regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

The article mentions that a bill has also been introduced to deal with unconstitutional laws passed by Congress. The article also notes that South Dakota lawmakers are working on a similar law.

If these laws are passed, I suspect that other states with Republican legislatures might pass similar laws. If that occurs, we will again see a divide between the prosperity of states run by Republicans and states run by Democrats–a divide we have seen during the coronavirus epidemic and how it was handled in various states.

A Very Easy ‘Follow The Money’

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that the House is planning to vote next week on a law that would override right-to-work laws in the 27 states that have those laws.

The article reports:

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat, argued that such “right-to-work” laws are unfair to unions and the workers that back collective bargaining, necessitating his bill, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act.

“Under current law, unions are required to negotiate on behalf of all employees, regardless if they belong to the union or not,” Scott told the Washington Examiner. “The PRO Act simply allows workers to decide that all workers represented by the union should contribute to the costs associated with negotiating on their behalf.”

Scrapping the state laws would force potentially millions of individual workers to give away part of their salaries, whether they wanted to or not, said Greg Mourad, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, which represents workers in cases against unions. “The term ‘right to work’ means the right to not have to pay for union so-called representation that workers don’t want, didn’t ask for, and believe actually goes against their interests,” he told the Washington Examiner.

The article notes:

Right-to-work laws say that employees cannot be forced to join or otherwise financially support a union as a condition of their job. Specifically, the laws prohibit union-management contracts from including so-called fair share fee provisions that require all workers to support the union financially.

When you consider that unions donate large amounts of money to Democrat campaign coffers, this bill is not a surprise. However, it seems to me that it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment–the federal government does not have the authority to determine right-to-work laws in individual states.

The article concludes:

The resurgence in right-to-work laws may now be ebbing. No other state appears poised to adopt one. Missouri would have been the 28th state, but voters last year approved a referendum stopping the measure before it went into effect.

The PRO Act would rewrite the NLRA to undo the 1947 amendment. “This bill, and others we’ve seen in various states, tries to subtly redefine ‘right to work’ to mean only the right to not have to formally be a member of the union, which is already guaranteed by the Supreme Court,” Mourad said. Nonmembers would still be obligated to support unions financially.

There has long been support for scrapping right to work on the Left, but the PRO Act enjoys unprecedented support among Democrats. The Senate version of the PRO Act was introduced with 39 original co-sponsors, comprising almost the entire Democratic caucus. The legislation is certain to pass the Democrat-majority House but is unlikely to be taken up in the Republican-led Senate.

“They’re testing the waters for the next time they are in the majority,” Vernuccio said.

In this instance, the Democrats are standing for the unions–not for the working man. This is simply a scheme to take more money our of workers’ pockets, give it to unions, and have unions give it to Democrat candidates. Democrat majorities in Congress are not helpful to the average American.

Respecting The Tenth Amendment

Posted on by

The Tenth Amendment states:

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.

To say that we have wandered from this principle is the equivalent of saying that there is some sand in the Sahara Desert. President Trump is slowly trying to put in place policies that will allow the states to reclaim at least part of the authority they were originally given under the constitution. Yesterday One America News posted an article about plans being looked at to change the way Medicaid is funded.

The article reports:

According to a Wall Street Journal report, President Trump is expected to release guidance that would make it easier for states to apply for block grants in the coming weeks.

The way these block grants work is that each state that applies for the program would receive a capped chunk of federal money to spend on Medicaid, however they choose. If a state spends less than what is given, they are able to keep that money for themselves.

Thus, the measure motivates state governments to make cuts on Medicaid as well as relinquish the federal government’s requirement to match what states spend on the issue. Many local lawmakers have reportedly praised the new tactic as financially responsible.

“We don’t need to put welfare in the Constitution to meet the needs of the most vulnerable,” said Jonathan Small, member of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. “It will cost $374 million in state taxpayer dollars, to cover 628,000 able bodied adults.”

Conservatives argue another perk is that Medicaid block grants are more efficient at the end of the day.

“Officials say it could improve the way Medicaid is administered since states can tailor their health care program to their citizens needs,” stated Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee. “Ultimately what that means is that the cost of healthcare will be lowered if states line up to be more efficient because they’ll be rewarded for such, then it will lower the cost of healthcare which is why it will be a win for the country.”

Hopefully bringing Medicaid back to state control would also cut down on the fraud that is so rampant in the program. Needless to say, Democrats oppose the move.

Their Concept Is Correct, The Patriotism Is Lacking

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about some recent comments by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin.

The article reports:

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was pressed on this “dilemma” that Democrats face as the 2018 midterms approach during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Staying united to stop the Supreme Court pick could cost you red state senators. Not fighting it as hard might allow the red state senators to get re-elected and get Democrats in control of the Senate. That’s your dilemma,” host Chuck Todd posited on Sunday.

Durbin conceded that it is a dilemma “in one respect,” but made that case for how it is a trade off Democrats are willing to make.

“It is a dilemma in one respect, but not in another. I will tell you, the men and women that I work with on the Democratic side really take this seriously. They understand it’s an historic decision. It’s about more than the next election,” he said, adding that the issue is about setting the future course for the country.

The balance on the Supreme Court has been slightly left on social issues because of the views of Justice Kennedy. Replacing Kennedy with a conservative justice who believes that the Constitution is the law of the land might change the court for generations. That might change many things. The main thing the Democrats are worried about is Roe v. Wade.

In 2013 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a very interesting comment about Roe v. Wade (article here):

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

What the frantic pro-abortion people are not telling you is that overturning Roe v. Wade would not end abortion–it would simple give the states the right to decide the issue for themselves (in accordance with the Tenth Amendment) as was the case before 1973.

What the hysteria over this judicial pick illustrates is that we have wandered from the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers envisioned the judiciary as the weakest branch of government–they were not elected and theoretically had little power–they did not make laws–Congress did. In 1803 Marberry v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, and the courts assumed power they were never intended to have. It is telling that American law students do not study the U.S. Constitution–they study case law.

President Trump has every right to have his nominee for the Supreme Court approved. Hopefully the Democrats will respect that right. Candidates should be judged on their qualifications–not their politics. Democrats pushed through some very left wing judges under President Obama after invoking the nuclear option. The Democrats demanded that the Republicans vote on qualifications rather than politics. It’s time for the Republicans to demand that same courtesy from the Democrats.

Does This Make Sense To Anyone?

Posted on by

California has declared itself a sanctuary state. Frankly, that is unconstitutional–even under the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.

Securing the borders is one of the powers delegated to the federal government, so California’s declaration that they are a sanctuary state is unconstitutional. However, there are other aspects of the actions of California that need to be looked at.

Yesterday The Western Journal reported that California will raise tuition for out-of-state students by nearly $1,000, a hike that will not apply to illegal alien students. So an illegal alien will pay less for an education in California than a legal American citizen from another state. That seems a little odd to me.

The article reports:

California Assembly Bill 540 mandates that illegal alien students can obtain in-state tuition if they attend high school in the state for a minimum of three years and earn a California high school diploma.

…UC regent chair George Kieffer reported that UC students have 31 percent less funding each in 2018 when compared with their 2000 counterparts.

“California is perpetually broke,” Mehlman told TheDCNF. “And yet they manage to come up with services for illegal aliens.”

The immigration advocacy spokesman elaborated on services the state provides to illegal aliens, such as grants, public housing, as well as various other state and local services.

Mehlman postulated that about half of illegal aliens work “off the books” and the other half use “bogus social security numbers.”

The demographic costs California taxpayers over $25 billion per year, according to FAIR.

TheDCNF reached out to the California Immigrant Policy Center for comment but received none in time for press.

I think if I were a legal American student from another state I would sue for discrimination. This policy makes no sense.

Remember The Tenth Amendment?

Posted on by

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

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.

The Hill is reporting today that the Task Force on 21st Century Policing, formed by President Obama after three events last year which involved the death of black Americans, has recommended that all officer-involved shootings be reported to the federal government. I believe that this recommendation is in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The states are in charge of local police departments–not the federal government. This is a dangerous consolidation of power by the federal government.

The article reports:

The Obama spokesman said the administration would take into account whether a state or local agency was following the recommendations when considering grant applications.

“[T]he president has asked the Community Oriented Policing Services Office at the Department of Justice to take responsibility for advancing the work of the task force, including prioritizing grant funding to law enforcement agencies that meet appropriate benchmarks that are related to these recommendations,” Earnest (White House press secretary Josh Earnest) said. 

This is how government takeovers work–we have seen it in education–the government gives money for education to states if the states are willing to comply with certain government programs. If the states do not comply, they do not get government money–it is a subtle takeover of something that the states are supposed to control.

A government takeover of local police departments is a serious threat to our representative republic. Also note that the government has been giving used military equipment to our local law enforcement agencies–equipment that is not appropriate for use on the streets of towns and cities in America.

An Interesting Development For The Political Left In America

Posted on by

The political left in America loves the United Nations. When the U.N. condemns Israel and supports countries that routinely practice persecution of non-Muslim religions, the political left in America doesn’t seem to notice. When the U.N. creates gun treaties that will take away Americans’ Second Amendment rights, the political left doesn’t worry about American sovereignty. Well, the question of American sovereignty is about to impact some of the political left.

Reuters posted a story yesterday reporting that Yury Fedotov, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), has told reporters that moves by some U.S. states to legalize marijuana are not in line with international drugs conventions.

The article reports:

“I don’t see how (the new laws) can be compatible with existing conventions,” Yury Fedotov, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), told reporters.

Asked whether there was anything the UNODC could do about it, Fedotov said he would raise the problem next week with the U.S. State Department and other U.N. agencies.

I have stated before that I do not support the legalization of marijuana. However, I do support American sovereignty and states’ rights. Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have all authority not enumerated as federal authority (Tenth Amendment). I believe that according to the U.S. Constitution, the states are within their rights to legalize marijuana. Has America given the U.N. sovereignty over our states?

The article concludes:

On the international level, Uruguay‘s parliament in late 2013 approved a bill to legalize and regulate the production and sale of marijuana — the first country to do so.

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has said Uruguay’s new bill contravened the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which it says requires states to limit the use of cannabis to medical and scientific purposes, due to its dependence-producing potential. The Vienna-based INCB monitors compliance with this and two other drug control treaties.

This could get interesting.

 

 

Taking Action On ObamaCare

Posted on by

On Thursday the Washington Times posted an article about a law making its way through the South Carolina legislature. The South Carolina House of Representatives passed a law to make President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) “null and void,” and criminalize its implementation.

The article reports:

The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

Governor Nikki Haley stated:

“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington. Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”

The bill went to the South Carolina Senate on Thursday and has been moved to the Committee on Finance. This could be the making of a states’ rights Supreme Court case or simply a major Constitutional crisis. Any legal challenges to this law would be related to the Tenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment states:

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.

Stay tuned, this could get very interesting.

Enhanced by Zemanta