Owner: Tenth Amendment Center URL:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com Join Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:53:57 -0600 Rating:0 Site Description: The Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of states’ rights issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal Site statistics:Click here
Faith-Based Socialism on Trial 2007-03-06 02:47:01 President Bush’s Faith
-Based Initiative has reached the Supreme Court. As reported in the Christian Science Monitor:
President Bush’s faith-based initiative is a signature program of his administration. But not all Americans share the president’s belief that the government should work in close partnership with religious organizations willing to perform nonreligious public services, like running homeless shelters or drug counseling programs.
Wednesday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case that examines to what extent those opponents have legal standing to file federal lawsuits alleging that the White House’s faith-based initiative amounts to unconstitutional entanglement of church and state.
The case stems from a 2002 lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin-based group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Members of the group filed the suit as taxpayers who objected to having their tax money used to support religion.
Although the lawsuit brings up important issues of Read more:Socialism
, Trial
Restricting Rights at Guantanamo, who will be next? 2007-02-23 01:54:45 As usual, our liberty is under attack by the federal government. An appeals court has just upheld a ruling that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay are not entitled to habeas corpus, and thus, cannot challenge their detention in court.
So, once again, the federal government, through its court system, has overstepped the restrictions of the Tenth Amendment, by assailing the Constitution and its principles of limited government. What a surprise! An agent of the government upheld the actions of the government!
As reported by Reuters:
An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the part of a tough anti-terrorism law signed by President George W. Bush that took away the rights of Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention before U.S. federal judges.
The United States Constitution brought into being a government of limited powers, which is quite unusual in the pages of world history. This government is one in which the only powers it has are those that are listed in the Constitution itself. Read more:Restricting
, Rights
Raising our Health Care Costs Again 2007-02-18 06:06:01 Once again, politicians in Washington are working hard to raise the cost of health insurance for you and your family. But, of course, that’s not how they sell it to us. They make the claim that they’re working together across party lines to help millions of Americans afford health insurance.
As the George Bush stated in his weekly radio address:
“From my conversations with Democrats and Republicans, it is clear both parties recognize that strengthening health care for all Americans is one of our most important responsibilities”
Based on this statement, it’s also quite clear that both parties have chosen to abandon the rules of the Constitution. As the 10th Amendment states so plainly:
“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.”
Here’s a simple challenge for anyone reading this post: review the US Constitution, and try to find health Read more:Raising
, Health
, Costs
, Again
, Health Care
The Drug War and the Totalitarian Nightmare 2007-03-14 02:13:41 The war on drugs continues unabated. As the New York Times recently reported:
Frustrated by government policy and inaction, a group of advocates for medical marijuana sued two federal health agencies on Wednesday over the assertion that smoking it has no medical benefit.
The group, Americans for Safe Access, a nonprofit organization based in Oakland, filed the lawsuit in Federal District Court, challenging the government’s position that marijuana, “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”
Although the lawsuit is well-intentioned, it’s clearly misdirected. Whether or not marijuana has a medical benefit is not the issue; whether or not the war on drugs should exist at all is the issue.
The Drug War knows no bounds. The Tenth Amendment clearly limits the federal government to powers that are specifically listed in the Constitution:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the St Read more:Nightmare
REAL ID: Rise of the Resistance 2007-03-22 03:36:18 State resistance to REAL ID is growing. The Associated Press reports from New Hampshire:
The New Hampshire Legislature took a baby step Tuesday toward rejecting what they say amounts to the creation of a national ID card.
The House Transportation Committee voted unanimously to recommend barring the state from complying with the federal REAL ID Act, which sets standards for driver’s licenses. The full House next considers the bill.
REAL ID, Passed in 2005 and due to take effect in 2008-9, turns your driver’s license into a de-facto national ID card. This is yet another step towards a totalitarian police state in America.
The Act mandates that all driver’s licenses carry the same information, no matter what state issues them. The states must also “provide electronic access to all other States to information contained in the motor vehicle database of the State.” In other words, your information will be in a national database that puts everything at the Feds’ Read more:Resistance
Time to Get Rid of the FDA 2007-04-01 06:31:38 The time has long since come for the U.S. Congress to abolish the Food and Drug Administration.
We’d like to think that FDA officials have only our health and safety in mind when they decide on what food or medicines they’ll allow us to buy. But, sadly enough, they’re as politically motivated as any politician in Washington.
Certain industries and corporations are rewarded, while many others are restricted, punished, or prevented from entering the marketplace. There is no such thing as a regulatory agency that is free from politics, which is all the more reason to keep the FDA out of our personal health care decisions.
FDA regulations have often prevented Americans from gaining access to new life-saving drugs. Examples of this include major delays in the marketing of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes
People have suffered unnecessarily — or even died — with such problems as heart disease, depression, schizophrenia, ki
REAL ID: Opposition in Tennesssee 2007-04-10 00:43:59 A Letter from a Reader:
Why this Conservative Tennessean Opposes REAL ID
1. REAL ID is a de facto national identification card. At least Lamar Alexander, in recent, comments was honest enough to admit this. Has America sacrificed so much for freedom only to create a “papers please” society?
2. REAL ID does an end-run around the 4h Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It is unreasonable to give the central government the power (potential) to track individuals in real-time. If the government needs to search the lives of a citizen, let it get a search warrant. We should not have to be monitered. Is not this the essence of freedom? REAL ID, and its future additions, will make li Read more:Opposition
War, Atrocities, Jurisdiction and Habeas Corpus 2007-04-18 02:20:16 In a recent article on HabeasCorpus
, it was shown that the 10th Amendment prevented the federal government from suspending Habeas. Why? Because the Constitution only allows for its suspension in very limited situations. Article I, Section 9 spells this out quite clearly:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
This, in conjunction with the 10th amendment’s mandate of limited government demonstrates that any suspension of Habeas Corpus without the above provision is done so in violation of the Constitution. For clarification, here’s the text of the Tenth:
“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.”
Typical of those who wrote in opposition was this comment posted by someone by the name of “L. Savage”
you seem to forget that we are at war,
Real ID: A Threat to Security 2007-04-25 05:25:11 Guest Commentary by Brian Trent
There’s a lesson in the Aesopian tale of the man who wanted to cook a frog. When he tossed the amphibian into a pot of boiling water, it leapt out to safety. The thwarted cook then changed tactics. He placed the frog in cold water… and slowly brought up the heat.
In much the same way, American freedom is slowly being cooked away. When I was growing up, “Papers, please!” was once the bark of Communist soldiers patrolling state lines. It’s set now to become an American staple. Slipped insidiously into an $81 billion bill for “supporting troops” and “tsunami relief” was a tiny law - The Real ID Act of 2005 - which creates a de facto National ID card for Americans and requires it to be in place by 2008 (the Feds are now “allowing” an extension through 2009 for States that request it). Every driver’s license will be required to include “physical security features” and “
“Energy Security” and the 10th Amendment 2007-05-01 19:37:25 From the Associated Press:
A year after warning America of its addiction to oil, President Bush is expected to renew concerns about energy security in his State of the Union address.
More…
Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman says the administration over the years has spent nearly $12 billion in developing new energy technologies. He cited the president’s $2.1 billion &ldquo
;advanced energy initiative&rdquo
; in the State of the Union a year ago.
The powers of the federal government are limited to only those specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Those powers, under any circumstance, can not be expanded constitutionally by the government, no matter how worthy the cause.
Like police powers, most energy authority is based in the states.
As the Supreme Court recently affirmed in United States vs. Lopez, the Constitution establishes a federal government of enumerated, and thus, limited powers.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to “ Read more:Amendment
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms 2007-05-09 18:40:38 Guest Commentary by Rep. Ron Paul
Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”
There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the Read more:Legislation
Time to Get Rid of the FDA 2007-05-17 06:31:38 The time has long since come for the U.S. Congress to abolish the Food and Drug Administration.
We’d like to think that FDA officials have only our health and safety in mind when they decide on what food or medicines they’ll allow us to buy. But, sadly enough, they’re as politically motivated as any politician in Washington.
Certain industries and corporations are rewarded, while many others are restricted, punished, or prevented from entering the marketplace. There is no such thing as a regulatory agency that is free from politics, which is all the more reason to keep the FDA out of our personal health care decisions.
FDA regulations have often prevented Americans from gaining access to new life-saving drugs. Examples of this include major delays in the marketing of drugs used to treat cancer, blood pressure, heart attacks, cholesterol, and strokes
People have suffered unnecessarily — or even died — with such problems as heart disease, depression, schizophrenia, ki
Understanding War Powers: Declare vs. Wage 2007-05-18 22:37:49 One of the many consequences of our current political climate, in which war seems to be almost endless, is that people are often driven to ask fundamental questions about the powers of war.
We must keep in mind that the Constitution was written under what’s referred to as “positive grant.” In short, this means that the only powers that the federal government can exercise are those specifically listed in the Constitution. Many of the founders were so concerned about this issue that they wrote the Tenth Amendment to put the concept of positive grant into writing.
“The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”
It is here clearly stated that the United States Constitution rests on a strict enumeration of federal powers; if a power was not specifically given by the People, the federal government simply cannot do it.
Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Read more:Understanding
, Powers
Understanding War Powers: Declare vs. Wage 2007-05-21 15:37:49 “Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder.” — Thomas Paine
One of the many consequences of our current political climate, in which war seems to be almost endless, is that people are often driven to ask fundamental questions about the powers of war.
We must keep in mind that the Constitution was written under what’s referred to as “positive grant.” In short, this means that the only powers that the federal government can exercise are those specifically listed in the Constitution. Many of the founders were so concerned about this issue that they wrote the Tenth Amendment to put the concept of positive grant into writing.
“The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”
It is here clearly stated that the United States Constitution rests on a stric Read more:Understanding
, Powers
Foreign Aid Follies 2007-05-31 22:58:29 The US government is now giving your tax dollars to the Mexican government so that government can improve its ability to tap telephone calls and emails.
From the Los Angeles Times report:
Mexico is expanding its ability to tap telephone calls and e-mail using money from the U.S. government, a move that underlines how the country’s conservative government is increasingly willing to cooperate with U.S. on law enforcement.
The expansion comes as President Felipe Calderon is pushing to amend Mexico’s constitution to allow officials to tap phones without a judge’s approval in some cases.
The fact that the US federal government continues to support countries that violate liberty should come as no surprise, considering similar such violations domestically too. Although such a program would obviously be considered repugnant by people who love liberty, simply opposing this measure alone only scratches the surface of the real problem.
As the wise saying goes, “it’s Read more:Foreign
, Follies
Foreign Aid Follies 2007-06-03 22:58:29 The US government is now giving your tax dollars to the Mexican government so that government can improve its ability to tap telephone calls and emails.
From the Los Angeles Times report:
Mexico is expanding its ability to tap telephone calls and e-mail using money from the U.S. government, a move that underlines how the country’s conservative government is increasingly willing to cooperate with U.S. on law enforcement.
The expansion comes as President Felipe Calderon is pushing to amend Mexico’s constitution to allow officials to tap phones without a judge’s approval in some cases.
The fact that the US federal government continues to support countries that violate liberty should come as no surprise, considering similar such violations domestically too. Although such a program would obviously be considered repugnant by people who love liberty, simply opposing this measure alone only scratches the surface of the real problem.
As the wise saying goes, “it’s Read more:Foreign
, Follies
Undeclared War and the Destruction of the Constitution 2007-06-13 16:40:19 In reading the Constitution
, we can plainly see that Congress possesses the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to raise and support armies, to grant letters of marque and reprisal, to provide for the common defense,” and even “to declare war.” Congress shares, with the President, the power to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors. As for the Executive, the President is assigned only two powers relating to foreign affairs; commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the power to receive ambassadors.
The United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in our country, delegates the power to declare war to the Congress and the power to wage war to the President. What that means is that only the Congress, as representatives of the People and of the States, can determine whether or not the nation goes to war. If the People, through Congress, decide that the nation shall go to war, the President then, and only then, has the author Read more:Undeclared
, Destruction
The Constitution and the Powers of War 2007-06-28 20:22:07 The framers of the Constitution
attempted to balance the power of the President as commander-in-chief with that of Congress, the representatives of the People. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war. They weighed the individual will of the Executive against the deliberative function of the Legislature, whose constituents would bear the full costs of any war.
Thus, the framers deliberately separated the powers of declaring and waging war; they confined these powers in such a way so as to thwart the tyranny of kings. Despite being known as one of the greatest champions of centralized power of the times, even Alexander Hamilton felt that the President must generally bow to Congressional directions in times of peace and also in times of war. He stated this clearly in Federalist #69:
“The Pr Read more:Powers
Undeclared War and the Destruction of the Constitution 2007-06-17 16:40:19 In reading the Constitution
, we can plainly see that Congress possesses the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to raise and support armies, to grant letters of marque and reprisal, to provide for the common defense,” and even “to declare war.” Congress shares, with the President, the power to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors. As for the Executive, the President is assigned only two powers relating to foreign affairs; commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and the power to receive ambassadors.
The United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in our country, delegates the power to declare war to the Congress and the power to wage war to the President. What that means is that only the Congress, as representatives of the People and of the States, can determine whether or not the nation goes to war. If the People, through Congress, decide that the nation shall go to war, the President then, and only then, has the author Read more:Undeclared
, Destruction
The Constitution and the Powers of War 2007-07-01 20:22:07 The framers of the Constitution
attempted to balance the power of the President as commander-in-chief with that of Congress, the representatives of the People. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives to the Executive Branch the command of the nation’s armed forces, while Article I, Section 8 gives to the Legislative Branch the power to decide when the United States goes to war. They weighed the individual will of the Executive against the deliberative function of the Legislature, whose constituents would bear the full costs of any war.
Thus, the framers deliberately separated the powers of declaring and waging war; they confined these powers in such a way so as to thwart the tyranny of kings. Despite being known as one of the greatest champions of centralized power of the times, even Alexander Hamilton felt that the President must generally bow to Congressional directions in times of peace and also in times of war. He stated this clearly in Federalist #69:
“The Pr Read more:Powers
Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance 2007-07-24 19:09:11 Guest Commentary by Rep. Ron Paul
Recently, the General Accounting Office studied nineteen instances where the President issued so-called “signing statements.” In such statements, the President essentially begins the process of interpreting legislation – up to and including declaring provisions unconstitutional—hence often refusing to enforce them.
The GAO study found that in nearly 1/3 of the cases studied, the administration failed to enforce the law as enacted. This approach is especially worrisome for several reasons.
First, these signing statements tend to move authority from the legislative branch to the executive, thus upsetting our delicate system of checks and balances. Next, these statements grant the President power not given by the Constitution, allowing him to usurp powers of the judicial branch. Finally, the idea of agencies refusing to enforce the law as enacted sets precedent for the type of run away administrative actions our constitution was expressly enac Read more:Balance
Free People and Free Markets 2007-08-10 12:40:44 by Clay Barham, PopulistAmerica.com
At this time in man’s history, we know more about how the human body works. With this knowledge, we know more about the kinds of behaviors to avoid in order not to harm the body. We know more about engineering and construction today, and what designs and behaviors to avoid that cause collapse. We know more about weather, to predict and avoid its harmful effects. Knowing more about everything helps us to live better in our world. Somehow, we refuse to learn more about our social and economic life. Knowledge would help us avoid behaviors that disrupt it.
We should reduce our economy to its parts and see how they work together. Then, we can better understand economics. First is the human element, the individual. Second is the community of individuals who interact with each other. Our economy is that interaction. If each individual simply sat on a log, hoping God would give him a meal, he would starve. He must fend for himself. If Read more:Markets
Understanding Limited Government 2007-08-16 14:24:44 Kevin Gutzman’s new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, might be the best available overview of the principles of limited government as espoused by the Tenth Amendment.
After reading this book, you’ll see quite clearly that the original constitution has very little in common with how this government is run today (if you haven’t noticed already!) The 10th Amendment has been pushed aside and the federal government runs rampant - exercising powers that the founders would never have dreamed of giving to any politician.
Instead of a system of government that was to be dominated by state-level decisions, the judicial branch has giving us ruling after ruling that’s overturned these principles - and left us with a highly-centralized system where bureaucrats and even appointed officials make most of the decisions.
In essence, according to Gutzman, instead of a government limited in power and scope, we now have a “judgeocracy” with near Read more:Understanding
, Government
Goodbye Alberto 2007-08-28 19:14:22 Here’s our take on the resignation of Alberto
Gonzales:
Ok, so he’s resigning. They’re going to replace him with someone awful.
It’s a sad reality that the problems we face aren’t based on personalities in government, but rather, on the systemic abuse of power by politicians.
Gonzales is gone. Nothing is going to change.
Why? Because the new A.G. will be the same…or worse. Just like he ended up worse than Ashcroft.
What we need is not just a simple change of faces in D.C., but instead, a change of policy; a return to the principles of the Constitution, and a return to the principles of limited government as espoused by the 10th Amendment.
Read more:Goodbye
Fighting for States’ Rights 2007-08-28 04:27:47 Reader Commentary by Chris Parker
In our system of government, built according to the blueprint of the Framers, the states are the highest governmental authority, and they themselves are subject only to the will and consent of their People. The states have the power bring an action immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e. original jurisdiction), in order to directly challenge the constitutionality of federal laws at the highest level.
They also have the power to amend the U.S. Constitution entirely on their own through the conventions procedure. Finally, with these awesome powers, they implicitly have the power to cancel or replace the U.S. Constitution if they so desire (if this were to be done, it would probably be done by using the amendment process to either substitute the Constitution’s entire text, or to merely insert an expiration date, depending on what new form of government is intended to replace it). So, the states are in no way becoming weak or powerless, no matt Read more:Fighting
, States
, Rights
The Root of the Problem 2007-09-02 02:07:32 Reports from the UK are talking about a British General lambasting US policy failures in Iraq. From the Guardian:
The bitter transatlantic row over Iraq intensified as another key British general lambasted the US for bungling the aftermath of the invasion.
Major General Tim Cross, the most senior UK officer involved in the post-war planning, said Washington’s policy had been “fatally flawed”. He also insisted he had raised serious concerns about the possibility of the country sliding into chaos with Donald Rumsfeld - but the then-US defence secretary “dismissed” the warnings.
Once again, the personalities and the media are concerned with the symptoms of our problems in Iraq - rather than the cause.
Although it seems that the Bush administration has made plenty of mistakes in the handling of Iraq - there are always going to be people who support those decisions. Thus, the debate in the media is generally focused on two sides - proper vs improper handling Read more:Problem
DC Gone Mad: Thoughts on the Craig Scandal 2007-08-30 20:29:48 Who cares.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the US government is:
still killing people every single day in Iraq
still putting people in prison for non-violent drug “crimes”
still taking your hard-earned money and handing it over to ruthless governments as “foreign aid”
still spying on people without warrants
still a bureaucratic nightmare
still holding people without access to lawyers
still maintaining a massive global military empire
still making “free speech zones”
and on, and on, and on……and on.
Our society - and the state of freedom in this country - is in pretty bad shape when a story about someone’s sexual choices is far bigger news than the corruption of virtually the entire federal government.
Read more:Craig
, Scandal
The Military Draft: A Moral Abomination 2007-08-29 15:21:57 by Michael Boldin
An article in Newsweek, “Why We Need a Draft
: A Marine’s Lament,” stirred up a bit of a hornet’s nest online recently. It was written by marine who fought in Fallujah, Iraq, and actually gave a pretty compelling overview of the practical need for selective service.
I’m sure the marine was right – forcing you or other people to kill or be killed next to him would have been good in the battles he fought in. In fact, I don’t doubt that a few million more soldiers would be quite beneficial to the military – and to the foreign policy ambitions of the US government.
On the other hand, many Americans also persuasively argue against the draft, saying it’s unnecessary or ineffective in defending America or engaging in foreign interventions. These arguments might very well be sound, and have their place.
The arguments about military “needs” or “benefits” aside, it seems that there’s always plenty of p Read more:Military
, Moral
, Abomination
And the War Rages On 2007-09-24 18:30:26 Just focusing on the economics of it all, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to cost nearly $200 Billion in 2008. And, if we assume the government will act like it normally does, you can expect that price tag to be far, far higher than what they claim it will be.
As reported by the AP (vis CBS News):
Spending to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year will total nearly $200 billion, according to a budget request the White House will take to Congress next week, making 2008 the most expensive year of those conflicts to date.
The news was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, which cited unnamed Pentagon officials.
The Bush administration has earlier this year said it would need $147.5 billion for fiscal 2008, but the estimates have been raised by another $47 billion. This request is in addition to the Pentagon’s nearly half-trillion annual budget, which omits war spending but covers routine costs, including training, payrolls and weapons pro
Iraq: The Divine Right of Kings Lives On? 2007-09-19 13:50:44 Cindy Sheehan, writing in an article titled “At What Price, Safety?“ at Buzzflash today made some excellent points arguing against the use of aggression by the US military against the people of Iraq
. She, like many others, realizes that the illusion of security that the federal government claims to provide could never justify its current actions - killing, violations of liberty and the like.
From the article:
One of the more morally reprehensible notes from the supporters of death I receive is the one that goes something like this: “I am for peace, too, but not at the expense of my family.” These people are saying that it is okay to ruin my family and thousands of other families in the U.S. who have been torn apart like the bodies of our loved ones to keep other families “safe.” I have news for these people, as bad as the sacrifices have been for some families in America, the people of Iraq have suffered far more for the deceptions and greed o Read more:Divine
, Right
, Lives
Recommend Site To A Friend
