Tenth Amendment Center Sign Up Information

This week, I had it in my tasks to put together a top-10 list of quotes from Thomas Jefferson. I thought it would make for a refreshing change-of-pace from the insanity that is partisan politics today. (and, of course, I included one on parties)

You probably won''t be surprised to know the first thing I learned - top-10 is almost impossible, and the hardest part is to keep it even close to that.  Jefferson had a LOT to say - and the closest I was able to get was 15 in 4 major categories, which you can read through below.

I also covered these all (with some added context) in this morning''s Path to Liberty Fast Friday Edition at this link

FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES

"A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
-Summary View Rights of British America (1774)

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
-Notes on the State of Virginia (1784)

"If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all"
-Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 Mar 1789)

"Law is often but the tyrant''s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual"
-Letter to Issac H. Tiffany (4 Apr 1819)

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another"
-Letter to Francis Gilmer (7 Jun 1816)

CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
-Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank (15 Feb 1791)

"The true theory of our constitution is surely the wisest & best, that the states are independant as to every thing within themselves."
-Letter to Gideon Granger (13 Aug 1800)

"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it's discretion, & not the constitution, the measure of it's powers"

"Whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it's acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force"
-both from Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

WARNINGS

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy."
-Letter to Charles Jarvis (28 Sept 1820)

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT

"We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty, in a feather-bed."
-Letter to Lafayette (2 Apr 1790)

"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, that we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time, and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good."
-Letter to Rev. Charles Clay (27 Jan 1790)

"If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be."
-Letter to Charles Yancey (6 Jan 1816)

WATCH/LISTEN
I went through each of these important quotes on Friday''s episode of the TAC''s Path to Liberty. It''s just a 14 minute show - but packed with a bunch of essential info. At the link below you''ll find a video and podcast edition - plus additional links to source documents so you can read and learn even more:

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/thomas-jeffersons-vision-top-15-quotes-on-the-constitution-and-liberty/

As I mentioned above, the hardest part of putting my notes together for this one was to keep it to 15. But if you like this kind of quick overview, make sure to let me know - I could also put together some quotes and an episode on spending and debt, paper money and banking, foreign policy, constitutional clauses - and more.

I hope you found this interesting and educational. Thank you for being here with us!

Concordia res parvae crescunt,
small things grow great by concord


--Michael Boldin, TAC

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we''re standing up against some of the most dangerous and unconstitutional programs in history. And I need your help right now.

NSA spying, gun control, the Federal Reserve and the DEA, EPA, BLM, TSA - I could make the list much longer, but I''m sure you get the point. An endless list of "laws," rules, orders, and regulations have transformed this country from a constitutional republic into...well something snowballing into a totalitarian nightmare.

To the establishment, your Constitution and your rights are nothing more than "intolerance."

Rather than teaching that the Constitution is a set of rules to LIMIT federal power, these people having been ramping up their all-out war on the Founders'' Constitution - and your liberty.

Tenth Amendment Center is not the first, but we''ve been the biggest proponent of using the Founders'' advice to stop unconstitutional programs through the states. As our friend Tom Woods put it, TAC "has done more than anyone in the world to advance the Jeffersonian principle of nullification."

I''ve got a great part time team and a bunch of amazing volunteers helping out, but I cannot continue this fight without the necessary funds to help educate millions of Americans on these attacks against the Constitution and liberty. 

I''m not asking for a lot, but when a lot of people like you join together and pitch in a little, it makes a huge difference. Would you please start a small (or large!) monthly donation to support our work today?

Today in history, on March 23, 1775, tensions in Virginia were at their highest point during the imperial crisis with Britain.

The House of Burgesses, the state's elected assembly, was about to make a bold decision - to commit its militia to the cause of independence. Britain had responded harshly to the Boston Tea Party the year prior through the Intolerable Acts. Virginians knew that any official pledge of military support could persuade the British to treat Virginia in the same way, and the matter became a hotly debated issue.

In St. John's Church, Henry made a bombastic speech in which he drew a stark dichotomy between liberty and tyranny. Henry claimed the only legitimate authority over the colonies were the colonial governments, not Parliament - knowing that Virginians expected internal political matters to be addressed in Williamsburg, not London.

If Britain violated these local interests, surely it would show contempt for Virginia's "ancient constitution" that was recognized for centuries. In Henry's mind, the hope of peaceful reconciliation had run its course. Although Henry refused to speak for others, he believed the outbreak of war was assured circumstances necessitated an ultimate choice between liberty and death:

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

According to Edmund Randolph, the convention sat in silent consideration of Henry's words for several minutes. Much of the Virginia General Assembly was stunned by the provocative nature of Henry's comments. Those still hoping to avoid independence strongly believed that such words would cause additional strain between Virginia and the mother country. Henry was even accused of treason for his oratory.

Despite the objections of some, Henry's resolutions passed by the narrowest of margins, with popular figures such as George Washington and Richard Henry Lee voting in favor. On the dawn of independence, Virginia joined the military cause against the British.

Among the delegates within the assembly were George Washington, St. George Tucker, and Thomas Jefferson. While he did not particularly like Patrick Henry, Jefferson later wrote in reflection of his oratory: "It is not now easy to say what we should have done without Patrick Henry. He was before us all in maintaining the spirit of the Revolution."

Henry's speech was considered the defining moment that convinced the House of Burgesses to pass the resolution, and Virginia committed its militia to aid the patriot cause. Inarguably, Virginia was the most important colony to be won over in the great struggle for independence, and the decision proved to be one of the most significant events that changed what at first seemed to be an isolated civil dispute between New England and the crown.

The incident ignited Virginia's transition from a British colony to an independent, republican state, and began to solidify a united, multi-colonial opposition toward Britain.

NOTE: Find Henry''s speech at the bottom of Dave''s article at this link.

LET''S GET THE JOB DONE!

This is the kind of information we work to get out to more and more people every single day - looking at every issue through the wisdom and experience of the Founders and old Revolutionaries.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Today in history, on July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress passed the Richard Henry Lee resolution, which called for ties between Great Britain and the American states to be "totally dissolved."

**read this post by Dave Benner in your browser (click here)

The monumental vote was unanimous among the colonies, with New York abstaining. Each state had one vote, regardless of size.

Initially reluctant to support this measure, South Carolina pledged to join with the majority provided that there would be no dissent from a vote of independence.

New York had not yet received instructions from its legislature to vote in favor, and British Admiral Richard Howe amassed a huge fleet of ships around Long Island. Still, New York's state government gave its delegates permission to support this cause a week later. However, several states had already declared independence prior to this point.

By July 2, some still clung to hope for a peaceful reconciliation with Great Britain, and delegates such as John Dickinson, one of the most famous Americans of the era, refused to sign the document. Others felt that if they authorized a vote of independence, their state would be treated as Massachusetts had.

Following the agitation in Boston, Britain dissolved the autonomy of the Massachusetts government, closed Boston's port, imposed a quartering law, and besieged the colony.

Upon the decision to secede from the British crown, a somber mood swept through Independence Hall as the delegates realized their actions would be considered treasonous. Despite the prospect of death by hanging, the decision had been made.

Historian Mercy Otis Warren - often called the "Muse of the American Revolution," wrote this account of the event:

"Their transactions might have been legally styled treasonable, but loyalty had lost its influence, and power its terrors. Firm and disinterested, intrepid and united, they stood ready to submit to the chances of war, and to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to transmit to posterity, the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature, and the privileges of Englishmen, claimed by Americans from the sacred sanctions of compact."

In response to the resolution, John Adams believed that July 2nd would be celebrated as the most extraordinary holiday in America, and wrote to his wife Abigail:

"The second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

While Adams did not realize the date of the Declaration of Independence's acceptance two days later would be the more recognizable and celebrated occasion, he fully grasped the significance of the day and its eternal importance.

Ironically, Adams would later attempt to diminish the significance of the moment, while Jefferson received much adulation for its philosophical influence as he became the lead opponent of the Adams administration.

TEXT OF LEE'S RESOLUTION

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation

***

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading, listening, watching - and your support!

Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)


-Michael, Dave, Mike, TJ
and the rest of the TAC Team

FREE E-BOOK: THOMAS JEFFERSON LETTERS, vol. 1

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

As Thomas Jefferson and James Madison strategized on how to address the Alien and Sedition Acts, they corresponded by mail, discussing their ideas. Ten key letters give further insight into their strategy. Their correspondence reveals that the resolutions were merely intended to serve as a starting point, setting the stage for additional, more aggressive steps to stop the federal overreach.

Wilson Cary Nicholas was also involved in the effort. He was an important figure in the Virginia ratifying convention that approved the Constitution, and at the time the Alien and Sedition Actspassed, he served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. He was a close and trusted friend of Jefferson, and delivered Jefferson??Ts draft of the Kentucky Resolutions to John Breckinridge, who eventually introduced them in the Kentucky House.

Following, you will find the ten letters between these three men reprinted in their entirety. Some of the letters also address other issues. In those cases, the relevant passages have been bolded.

Download it here for Kindle, Apple, PC and other devices

Hi Jon,

It''s not just Mitt Romney.

Flip-flopping and politicians have gone hand-in-hand since the beginning of the republic...and before.

You probably wouldn''t be surprised to hear me say that Alexander Hamilton was a notorious flip-flopper to anyone with an honest eye on history. I think he was willing to say anything to anyone to get whatever he wanted - and what he usually wanted was more centralized power.

In fact, in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, he sounded more like a James Madison - even pointing out that the federal government would be strictly limited to "expressly delegated" powers.

But once he was able to convince enough people who were concerned about power to support his plan - he totally flipped the switch.

For example, he went out of his way to tell opponents of ratification that there was no way that the general welfare clause would be used as a grant of general authority. In Federalist #83, he called such claims "absurd."

But just 7 years later, he totally changed his tune, claiming that Congress did have an almost unlimited "general" power under the clause.

Surprise, surprise, right?  And he took a similar approach to the necessary and proper clause.

Hamilton was far from alone, though.

James Madison, just weeks before the start of the Philadelphia convention in 1787, sent George Washington his ideas for how the new government should be structured. 

And he sounded far more like Hamilton - calling for total centralization of power. He wanted the national legislature to have a veto power over all acts of state legislatures - including a power to use the "full fource" of the Union to ensure compliance.

Madison even told Washington that this was absolutely necessary to ensure that states couldn''t evade and defeat federal programs.

But less than a year later, Madison was singing a different tune. In Federalist 46, he pointed out that if individuals and states merely "refuse to cooperate with officers of the Union," they have the power to undermine and end federal programs - Constitutional or not.

He sold this as a positive - he made the case that the ability to evade and defeat federal measures was a benefit for the states. 

Madison''s flip-flop - unlike Hamilton''s - was in support of the Constitution, even though he didn''t get all the features and powers he wanted. 

Unfortunately, we don''t get that kind of integrity from almost anyone in Washington D.C. today. Instead, they take the Hamilton approach - and try to squeeze whatever power they want into the Constitutional text, if they even mention it.

I covered both these stories in a bit more detail earlier today in the latest episode of Path to Liberty.  Just 14 minutes - and packed with reference links for you to read and learn more - I hope you enjoy this show as much as I enjoyed putting the information together for you.

Here''s the link, you know what to do:
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/madison-and-hamilton-a-tale-of-two-flip-flops/

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading, watching, listening - and your support!

--Michael Boldin, TAC

Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

Hi Jon,

I ran across an interesting article recently headlined "How Hatred Came to Dominate American Politics." It brought up some pretty good points, particularly regarding the nationalization of American politics.

But I think the article swerved pass the biggest cause of the division and hatred in American politics today - the centralization of power in Washington D.C.

The founders called this "consolidation" and many warned it was dangerous to liberty.

For instance, Fisher Ames, a delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, wrote:

"A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution."

Think about it. When virtually every important decision is dictated to some 325 million people from a nearly all-powerful, far-away government, it only makes sense that people are going to fight tooth and nail over who gets to control it.

Every election is perceived as a mortal, winner-take-all battle. The victors get to impose their wills on the large minority they vanquish at the ballot box.

Patrick Henry warned, "Consolidation must end in the destruction of our liberties."

He was right.

This is why I rail against the incorporation doctrine - the made up out of thin-air Supreme Court doctrine that allows federal judges to effectively dictate policy at the state or local level.

A lot of people think it's a good idea because the federal courts can protect us from state or local tyranny.

Cute theory. But it almost never works out that way.

Why would you trust the most powerful government in the history of the world to protect your liberties?

This strategy runs counter the wisdom of the founding generation. And it falls flat with historical scrutiny.

That''s why we spend so much time working to do two main things a) educate on the proper role of government under the Constitution and b) teach people the Founders'' strategy to defend it without relying on the federal government to limit its own power - which will never, ever happen.

The best place to get a detailed overview of our work is in our annual State of the Nullification Movement report. You can download it for free HERE.

You can also follow the TAC''s video and podcast, Path to Liberty, 3x/week at this link.

We hope you find this information interesting and educational - there is a lot more on the way.

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)


--Mike Maharrey, TAC

Hi Jon,

For years, the Tenth Amendment Center has drawn the ire of both the American right and left, but generally for different reasons. To the left, we were neo-Confederates trying to mask our desire to somehow reintroduce slavery and Jim Crow segregation by promoting nullification and states'' rights. We draw the ire of the right for challenging unconstitutional wars and the federal War on Drugs.

While we have detractors from both sides of the political divide, the most vocal opposition almost always originates from whichever side holds federal power at the moment.

During the Bush years, we frustrated the right because we stood against unilateral executive war powers, the REAL ID Act, the so-called Patriot Act and more. During the Obama years, the left railed against us because we opposed Obamacare, Common Core, the IRS, the War on Drugs, police militarization, gun control, even the Supreme Court imposing its own definition of marriage on the states.

Now we've gone full circle.

Although presidents have changed, our position remains the same: "The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses."

Meanwhile, the tunes sung by both political movements in the country have switched entirely. The right, once the advocate of decentralization, is now pushing for greater executive power. Meanwhile, the left has suddenly come to appreciate, perhaps begrudgingly, the role of nullification as the "rightful remedy" that people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison offered to combat federal tyranny.

How ironic that people who for years seethed with contempt for the founding fathers and everything they stood for have suddenly developed an appreciation for the philosophy they fought, suffered, and even died to preserve!

Some have found this flip-flopping amusing, perhaps ironic. To them, it's a game played between both sides. When one wins, they switch talking points and strategies. In years past, that might have been humorous. But I find no levity in the situation, or the prolonged, rampant hypocrisy.

It's a game this country can no longer afford to play.

It has done indescribable damage to our political system, our government, and the Constitution. What's more, it is not sustainable. Calls for defending the Constitution and limited government now fall on deaf ears because Americans who hear it and might have otherwise listened know that those who proclaim it are disingenuous and opportunistic. Adhering to the rule of law is now the trite punchline of an old joke.

The Constitution is not a political buffet. We don't get to pick and choose which parts of it we will follow and what parts we will ignore because we don't like them.

For it to have any real meaning or force, the whole document must be followed and its constraints acknowledged. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of the very concept of a written constitution. In doing so we regress to the days of the British Crown that only afforded a "living, breathing" constitution that had no definite meaning beyond the temporary moment

The time will soon be upon us when Americans of all political stripes must decide whether we are going to accept the Constitution as it is written or reject it entirely, because the pretense of federalism has at last come to an end.

If Americans refuse to do this; if they insist on violating it to impose their will on their fellow countrymen, then they invite the very question of why they live under the same government in the first place. We can no longer waver between freedom and tyranny. If we wish to be free, then fight for the freedom of all. If not, then do not be surprised when your opponents use the very same tyranny you would wield against them to subjugate you.

--TJ Martinell, TAC

Please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading, listening, watching - and your support!

Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

Hi Jon,

This should be pretty obvious to all of us by now:

Don''t trust government. 

Don''t trust politicians, or bureaucrats. And don''t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty.

A lot of people seem to only distrust politicians they don't like. That's easy. But where the Constitution and liberty face great danger is through the millions of people who blindly trust politicians from their own team.

While we''ve often focused on warnings from leading founders who supported ratification of the Constitution - James Madison, John Adams, George Washington and many others - it''s just as important (and possibly more) to focus on many of the other Founders lost down the memory hole of time - and government-run propaganda centers, i.e. public schools.

Here are some of the anti-federalist warnings that I covered on Monday''s episode of Path to Liberty:

John Williams - one of Hamilton''s great opponents in the New York Ratifying Convention:

Ingenious men may assign ingenious reasons for opposite constructions of the same clause. They may heap refinement upon refinement, and subtilty upon subtilty, until they construe away every republican principle, every right sacred and dear to man.

Arthur Lee (as Cincinnatus) - a long-standing opponent of slavery and a supporter of property rights from Virginia:

Suspicion... is essential to the preservation of liberty against the artful and persevering encroachments of those with whom power is trusted

Gen. Samuel Thompson (Mass):

one thing surprises me: it is, to hear the worthy gentleman insinuate that our federal rulers would undoubtedly be good men, and that, therefore, we have little to fear from their being intrusted with all power. This, sir, is quite contrary [34] to the common language of the clergy, who are continually representing mankind as reprobate and deceitful, and that we really grow worse and worse day after day

"Old" Abraham White (Mass):

We ought to be jealous of rulers. I would not trust a "flock of Moseses."

Brutus (either Melancton Smith or John Williams of New York):

we know how dangerous it is to trust the best of men with too much power.

Patrick Henry - one of many warnings in the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

I hope you find these quotes interesting and educational - I provided a few others, plus plenty of context on Monday''s episode of Path to Liberty. If you want us to share more from the anti-federalists, please do let me know!

--Michael Boldin, TAC

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

It is sometimes suggested that the Founders did not consider property rights important because the term "property"? was mentioned only once in the Constitution.

The truth is that the Founders were concerned about a range of human values, but property rights were high on their list. In fact, few rights have been more prominent throughout American history than property rights.

Additionally, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protected property in many ways.  I covered this in a recent episode of the Path to Liberty (find it here)

For example, the Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Sounds familiar, doesn''t it?

Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4).

They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5).

They gave Congress an unlimited power to dispose of public land (IV-3-2), but only limited power to acquire or hold land (I-8-17 and certain incidental powers).

This was because they wanted most publicly-owned land to be transferred to the private sector.

John Dickinson, the "Penman of the Revolution," put it this way in 1768:

"We cannot be HAPPY, without being FREE-that we cannot be free, without being secure in our property-that we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may, as by right, take it away"

Samuel Adams reiterated this in 1772:

"What liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?"

And here''s John Adams in 1790:

"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."

James Madison made the case that property rights were the foundation of liberty - and that all other natural rights are actually property rights, such as self ownership.

This is a topic we don''t cover enough here at the TAC. I think the information is incredibly important - and I learned quite a bit as I put it all together. I hope you find it as interesting and educational as I did. At the link below, you can find a video version of the show, a podcast edition - and a bunch of links so you can read and research even more.

Here''s the link, you know what to do::
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/the-founders-and-property-rights/

Thank you so much for reading, watching, listening and sharing!

Concordia res parvae crescunt,
(small things grow great by concord)


--Michael Boldin, TAC

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

We''re facing the biggest government in the history of the world, and many people keep clamoring for more. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions - and it''s never enough. But the founders warned us that every exception would lead to more in the future.

While the odds are obviously stacked against those of us who stand for the constitution and liberty - it''s up to us to do what''s right.

And for us at the TAC, what''s right is pretty straightforward. The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Hi Jon,

Most Americans say the Constitution is important and needs to be followed. But what exactly are the constitutional limits on federal power? How do we know?

Well, whatever you do, don't ask a lawyer. Most of them know very little about the Constitution.

I can already hear some people protesting. Lawyers know a lot about the Constitution, some tell me. They learn constitutional law, for goodness sake!

But read closely what I wrote. I didn't say they don't know a lot about constitutional law. I said they typically don't know a lot about the Constitution. There's a huge difference.

Constitutional law is made up of a bunch of lawyers' opinions about what the Constitution means. But that's not how you understand the actual meaning of the Constitution.

I've been told that law students prepping for the Bar Exam are told that if the Tenth Amendment is ever among the answers on a multiple-choice question, they can immediately rule it out.

For them, the Tenth Amendment is never the right answer.

Thomas Jefferson had a little different view of the Tenth Amendment. He called it the "foundation of the Constitution."

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

The Tenth Amendment makes it unquestioningly clear that the Constitution constrains the general government to very specific and very limited powers. As James Madison explained in Federalist #45, "The powers delegated to the federal government by the proposed Constitution are few and defined."

That's the dirty little secret politicians don't want you to know.

Now - brace yourself. This might come as a shock. But the people in power are perfectly happy to operate with an undefined, boundless field of power.

And that's why the Tenth Amendment is never the right answer according to the politicians, and the academics, judges, power brokers, lobbyists and talking heads that support them.

Before the ink was even dry on the Constitution, the political class was already "interpreting" the document to expand its own powers. Today, that federal government controls nearly every aspect of your life. It runs your healthcare, educates your children and monitors your every move. Bureaucrats in Washington D.C. even tell you how much water you can flush down your toilets.

So much for powers "few and defined."

Sadly, most Americans accept this state of affairs. They even embrace it. In fact, most Americans actually believe that the federal government legitimately exercises all of this authority. After all, they've been taught all their lives that the Tenth Amendment is the wrong answer.

The nature of the American political system exacerbates the expansion of power. "Democracy" gives everybody the false sense that they have some hand in exercising power - or that they will at least benefit from its expansion. This creates a dilemma, as political economist Bertrand de Jouvenel explained.

Under the 'ancient regime,' society's moving spirits, who had, as they knew, no chance of a share in Power, were quick to denounce its smallest encroachment. Now, on the other hand, when everyone is potentially a minister, no one is concerned to cut down an office to which he aspires one day himself, or to put sand in a machine which he means to use himself when his turn comes. Hence, it is that there is in the political circles of a modern society a wide complicity in the extension of Power."

A written constitution was meant to lay down rules that check the tendency for government to grow. It erects barriers to government power that must not be crossed. As Jefferson put it, "in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."

But like most things, a constitution won't work if you don't know how to use it.

Don't ask a lawyer. Read this instruction manual - Tom Woods called it "the best short introduction to the real Constitution, as opposed to the one taught in law school and the New York Times."

After all, the Constitution belongs to you. And it belongs to me. It doesn't belong to the government and its functionaries. It belongs to "we the people."

But for far too long politicians, bureaucrats, judges, law professors, and chattering pundits have told us how the Constitution should work. The political class has "interpreted" the rules. And it's interpreted to give them more and more power over you and me.

After 231 years of interpretation, we now have a federal government that claims the authority to do virtually anything and everything. It has taken possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Along the way, our liberties have been whittled away. The power of the politicians grows at the expense of our liberties.

If we want to reclaim our liberties, something has got to give. It's time for dis-interpretation. It's time for "we the people" to reclaim the Constitution.

That's what this book is all about. This is our instruction manual. We're going look at the Constitution through the eyes of the generation who wrote and ratified it.

We're going to follow Jefferson's admonition and "carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

This is the real Constitution that the politicians don't want you to know about.

A written constitution was meant to lay down rules that check the tendency for government to grow. It erects barriers to government power that must not be crossed. Jefferson again covered it so well when he wrote, "in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."

In other words, in the American political system, as originally conceived, the Tenth Amendment is always the right answer.

I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing this excerpt and the entire book.  If you''d like a copy, you can get it here: https://shop.tenthamendmentcenter.com/product/constitution-owners-manual/

Wishing you a happy, safe, and healthy Thanksgiving!

--Mike Maharrey, TAC

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!

Hi Jon,

Civil asset forfeiture is nothing more than legalized, institutionalized, government-sanctioned theft.

When prosecutors initiate a civil asset forfeiture case, property owners must prove the property wasn't involved in criminal activity. This flips due process on its head, forcing the owner to establish the property's "innocence." This shifts the burden of proof from the state to the citizen.

Police departments often get a cut of asset forfeiture proceeds, in some cases keeping 100 percent of the haul. This has led many to dub the process "policing for profit."

Both state and federal law enforcement agencies engage in asset forfeiture, but many states have moved to reform the process. Several states have ended civil asset forfeiture altogether, replacing it with a criminal forfeiture process that requires a conviction before proceeding with forfeitures.

Some jurisdictions have also addressed the policing for profit motive by barring law enforcement agencies from keeping asset forfeiture proceeds. Instead, they must be deposited in the general fund or some other non-law enforcement related account.

Equitable Sharing

Even with the movement to end civil asset forfeiture at the state level, police have a federal loophole they can use to continue cashing in even when states reform their systems and do away with the monetary incentives. "Equitable Sharing" incentivizes prosecutors to bypass more stringent state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government. 

It works like this: state and local police work the case and then claim it involves federal law or crosses into federal jurisdiction. Through a process known as "adoption," the federal government prosecutes the forfeiture case under federal law and splits the proceeds with the local police. Through this program, state and local law enforcement agencies receive up to 80 percent of the take.

In 2018, the federal government distributed over $400 million to state and local law enforcement agencies. That was up from $295 million the previous year.

But states can simply opt out of equitable sharing - and many have.

Until a few years ago, California was a prime example of how equitable sharing undermines state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture. The state has some of the strongest restrictions in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds and accessing the equitable sharing program. 

According to a report by IJ, Policing for Profit, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. In 2016, the state closed the loophole in the vast majority of cases.

Following California's lead, Colorado opted out of equitable sharing in most cases in 2017.

Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah and Arizona have also passed reforms placing similar limits on participating in the equitable sharing program. And in 2018, Wisconsin took a small step toward disincentivizing equitable sharing by prohibiting law enforcement agencies from collecting equitable sharing money unless there is a federal or state criminal conviction on the crime that was the basis for the seizure.

In 2019, Michigan, North Dakota and New Jersey all reformed their asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction in most cases, but none of them addressed the federal loophole. Unless they pass follow-up legislation, law enforcement will be able to use equitable sharing and render these reforms significantly less effective in practice. 

Alabama and New Jersey took the first step toward ending equitable sharing by implementing strict reporting requirements last year, and West Virginia did the same in 2020. The requirements include reporting on cases adopted by the federal government and information on participation in equitable sharing. 

While these three reporting laws do not stop civil asset forfeiture, they do lay a foundation to do so in the future. By increasing transparency, these reporting requirements will allow people in those states to actually see the reality of asset forfeiture. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best antiseptic. Transparency often creates the momentum needed to drive future change.

New Mexico provides an example of how law enforcement agencies will continue to try to work around forfeiture reforms and the sunshine and diligence required to keep them in check. In 2019, Gov. Lujan Grisham signed a bill into law closing a loophole some city officials claim allows them to continue with civil asset forfeiture despite a 2015 law meant to end the practice.

While some people believe the Supreme Court "ended asset forfeiture, its opinion in Timbs v. Indiana ended nothing. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor Ilya Somin noted, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as an "excessive" in the civil forfeiture context?

"That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today's decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal."

Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this "over the next few years," or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level today. 

We hope you found this report interesting and educational - there are others to come soon on other issues like gun control, surveillance and more!

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)


--Michael, Mike, Dave, TJ 
and the rest of the TAC Team

SUPREME COURT ISSUES OPINIONS, DOESN''T MAKE LAW (video here)

"The despotism of an oligarchy."

That''s how Thomas Jefferson described the federal court system we live under today.

We''re all probably far too familiar with the phrase "legislating from the bench." It''s a common complaint - and a dangerously-common practice. But it was never intended to be that way.

Founder after founder hammered this home.

Rufus King: "The judges must interpret the laws; they ought not to be legislators."

Nathaniel Gorham saw no "advantage of employing the Judges in this way. As Judges they are not to be presumed to possess any peculiar knowledge of the mere policy of public measures."

Charles Pinckney also "opposed the interference of the Judges in the Legislative business."

Roger Sherman "disapproved of Judges meddling in politics and parties."

As Raoul Berger noted, "Plainly the Framers refused to make the judiciary "law-givers," even to the extent of allowing them to share in the legislative making of law, let alone finally to decide on policy, an exclusive legislative function."

In 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "this case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversion on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice [John Marshall]." 

Brion McClanahan covered this, noting that "Jefferson was pointing out a fact - that Supreme Court decisions are nothing more than the politically motivated constitutional ruminations of politically appointed justices."

The power to offer opinion does not equal the power to make law.

I covered this in much more detail on today''s Path to Liberty. I also included in the links a number of important articles and books so you can read and learn more, including:

Dave Benner, Raoul Berger, Brion McClanahan and Mike Maharrey.

As mentioned in a recent email, Jefferson warned us that the Supreme Court was the "engine of consolidation" he feared would destroy the foundation of the Republic.

In an 1820 letter to William Charles Jarvis, he took things further:

"you seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy."

He couldn''t have been more right - or even prophetic.

Watch, listen, and read more - much more - at this link:
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/the-supreme-court-issues-opinions-not-law/

I hope you find it interesting and educational.

Thank you so much for reading and sharing!

Concordia res parvae crescunt,
small things grow great by concord


--Michael Boldin, TAC

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we''re standing up against some of the most dangerous and unconstitutional programs in history. And I need your help right now.

NSA spying, gun control, the Federal Reserve and the DEA, EPA, BLM, TSA - I could make the list much longer, but I''m sure you get the point. An endless list of "laws," rules, orders, and regulations have transformed this country from a constitutional republic into...well something snowballing into a totalitarian nightmare.

To the establishment, your Constitution and your rights are nothing more than "intolerance."

Rather than teaching that the Constitution is a set of rules to LIMIT federal power, these people having been ramping up their all-out war on the Founders'' Constitution - and your liberty.

Tenth Amendment Center is not the first, but we''ve been the biggest proponent of using the Founders'' advice to stop unconstitutional programs through the states. As our friend Tom Woods put it, TAC "has done more than anyone in the world to advance the Jeffersonian principle of nullification."

I''ve got a great part time team and a bunch of amazing volunteers helping out, but I cannot continue this fight without the necessary funds to help educate millions of Americans on these attacks against the Constitution and liberty. 

I''m not asking for a lot, but when a lot of people like you join together and pitch in a little, it makes a huge difference. Would you please start a small (or large!) monthly donation to support our work today?

Hi Jon,

"It is not a grant of new powers to Congress"
-James Madison on the Necessary and Proper Clause

Supporters of the monster state want you to believe that "Necessary and Proper" means "anything and everything." 

The clause itself ranks among the most abused in the Constitution. It has been dubbed the "elastic" or "sweeping" clause because of the perception that it allows the scope of federal power to expand to pretty much anything politicians consider "necessary." 

In the Constitution, it simply states that Congress has the power, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The federal government began abusing this clause within years of ratification. In 1800, James Madison countered these early abuses, forcefully arguing that it's not elastic at all and doesn't give the government any additional powers.

But this position on the Necessary and Proper clause was nothing new. In Federalist No. 44, he gave it a pretty lengthy treatment, pointing out that the Philadelphia Convention had 4 other options of how to address what was known to be the legal doctrine of "principles and incidents"

All four of those options, Madison argued, would have rendered the Constitution a dead letter - authorizing what we have today, a government that does whatever it wants as long as those in power think it's "necessary."

Madison rejected this kind of view throughout his career. For example, in his argument against the constitutionality of the national Bank Bill in 1791, he said, "Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would give an unlimited discretion to Congress."

In his Report of 1800, Madison went on to offer a simple 2-step process to determine the constitutionality of any federal action.

First:

"Whenever, therefore a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular power; the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided."

If the delegated power exists authorizing the federal action, that settles the issue. Nobody argues that the federal government can't run the Post Office. Article 1 Sec. 8 explicitly authorizes this. But if we find no delegated power, Madison prescribes a second step.

"If it [the power] be not expressed; the next enquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it."

In other words, if the federal action is absolutely necessary to carry out a power clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and it is a proper, or customary, way of doing so, then, as Madison put it, "it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it."

Judges and elected officials have expanded the scope of "necessary and proper" far beyond its original meaning. They have effectively turned it into the anything and everything clause. Madison clearly argues this was not the intent.

And on the last day of his administration, he vetoed a federal infrastructure spending bill that he supported in principle. Why? Because it was not "necessary and proper," and that's the kind of integrity that has been lacking for generations.

"The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States."

I covered this in much more detail on Monday's episode of Path to Liberty. Use the link below for video and audio versions - plus a bunch of reference links for you to read and learn more:

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/james-madison-on-the-necessary-and-proper-clause/

I hope you enjoy this information as much as I enjoyed putting it together for you. Wishing you a happy, safe, and healthy Thanksgiving holiday!

--Michael Boldin, TAC

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

I hear a lot of bad constitutional arguments justifying this or that federal action. One common justification for expanding federal power is: "This thing is necessary! It needs to be done."

But it doesn't follow that the federal government has to do the thing. In fact, the founding generation expected that the states and the people would do most of the "necessary things" - not the federal government.

Tench Coxe was a prominent and influential advocate for ratification of the Constitution and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He later served as Secretary of the Treasury. He wrote three essays published in the Pennsylvania Gazette in early 1788 under the pen-name "A Freeman."

In these essays, Coxe offered some of the most forceful arguments asserting the limited nature of the federal government under the proposed Constitution. He insisted that many, if not most, of the "necessary" things for society would be taken on by state and local governments, not the federal government. He wrote:

"It will be found, on a careful examination, that many things, which are indispensibly necessary to the existence and good order of society, cannot be performed by the foderal government, but will require the agency and powers of the state legislatures or sovereignties, with their various appurtenances and appendages." [Emphasis added]

Why can't the federal government perform these things? Because as James Madison explained in Federalist #45, "The powers delegated to the federal government by the proposed Constitution are few and defined." [Emphasis added]

Coxe drove his point home by listing ten broad areas where the federal government has no authority to act. Several of these are self-evident, but the long list included in the tenth point drives home the extremely limited nature of the federal government supporters of the Constitution promised.

"They cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals; the making or regulation of roads, except post roads; building bridges; erecting ferries; establishment of state seminaries of learning; libraries; literary, religious, trading or manufacturing societies; erecting or regulating the police of cities, towns or boroughs; creating new state offices; building light houses, public wharves, county gaols, markets, or other public buildings; making sale of state lands, and other state property; receiving or appropriating the incomes of state buildings and property; executing the state laws; altering the criminal law; nor can they do any other matter or thing appertaining to the internal affairs of any state, whether legislative, executive or judicial, civil or ecclesiastical." [Emphasis Added]

In his second essay, Coxe approaches the issue from the other side, enumerating "what the state governments must or may do." Again, many of the items Coxe lists as the exclusive purview of the states reveals just how far the federal government has usurped state authority.

"The several states can create corporations civil and religious; prohibit or impose duties on the importation of slaves into their own ports; establish seminaries of learning; erect boroughs, cities and counties; promote and establish manufactures; open roads; clear rivers; cut canals; regulate descents and marriages; licence taverns; alter the criminal law; constitute new courts and offices; establish ferries; erect public buildings; sell, lease and appropriate the proceeds and rents of their lands, and of every other species of state property; establish poor houses, hospitals, and houses of employment; regulate the police; and many other things of the utmost importance to the happiness of their respective citizens. In short, besides the particulars enumerated, every thing of a domestic nature must or can be done by them." [Emphasis Added]

So yes - a lot of things are "necessary." But that doesn't mean the federal government can do them. The federal government remains limited by its delegated powers.

"Necessary" isn't a constitutional argument.

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

We''re facing the biggest government in the history of the world, and many people keep clamoring for more. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions - and it''s never enough. But the founders warned us that every exception would lead to more in the future.

While the odds are obviously stacked against those of us who stand for the constitution and liberty - it''s up to us to do what''s right.

And for us at the TAC, what''s right is pretty straightforward. The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Hello Jon,

When I think of sharing what I''m thankful for, there are so many things - family, friends, health - and so much more. And for the past 14 1/2 years, I''ve been given an incredible gift - the opportunity to share the wisdom of the Founders with more and more people every single day of the year.

When I started the TAC back in 2006, my goal was to reach just a single person - maybe a handful of people - and help them understand the Constitution and liberty.

Since day one, this has been David vs. Goliath. TAC vs. the establishment. Good guys with almost nothing vs. the bad guys with everything.

Fast-forward to today, and TAC has had an impact far beyond anything I ever imagined. In the last few years, we''ve seen more nullification bills introduced - and PASSED - than at any time in our history.

Nothing - and I mean nothing - helps us roll up our sleeves every day and get the job done more than the support of our members. And I couldn''t be more grateful for you putting your financial faith behind our work.

THANK YOU for being a part of it with us!

Even though I'm the type of person who always thinks in big-picture-mode, in 2006 I had no idea where this would lead.

While I hoped to start something important, I had no expectations of leading a movement for the Constitution and liberty. Or publishing books on the Constitution and nullification. Or releasing a documentary film and two follow up video series. Or having people I've never met join as members to support the cause.

No, I expected absolutely none of that! But that didn''t matter - I felt I had to do something - and sharing the truth and a path to liberty was the right something for me, whether other people agreed with me, or not.

As my great friend Tom Woods once put it in an interview, TAC "has done more than anyone in the world to advance the Jeffersonian principle of nullification."

It's not possible to properly thank all the members, supporters, readers, volunteers, bloggers, organizers, interviewers, donors, friends, family - everyone who has done anything and everything over the years - to help us get to where we are, so I''ll keep it brief: 

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Every minute volunteered, every hour worked, every dollar donated - it's all part of a big, long-term strategy to beat back the forces against us, and WIN for the Constitution and liberty.

Years ago, at least ten, a guy named Peter wrote in to encourage me to push on. It's something I'll never forget.

"Truth may not be forceful - but it can heal. It can even repair a broken world. Truth poses no threat to anyone save those who rely on untruth as the cornerstone of their foundations. It is time to speak the truth- irrespective of who is listening or even has the ears to hear."

That sure hit home for me.

With your help, we'll not only continue to get the job done right now, but we'll go much further in the years to come. THANK YOU!

Concordia res parvae crescent
(small things grow great by concord)


Michael Boldin, TAC

Hi Jon,

Shall. NOT. Be. Infringed.

Period.

Not - "unless it fires too fast."

Not - "as long as the barrel isn''t too short on that shotgun"

Not - "unless the caliber is too large"

And no, an accessory that some gun experts call a kiddie toy isn''t a machine gun either. And if it was, there''s still no authority under the Constitution to ban that, either.

There''s no caveat. No exceptions. None.

That means every federal gun control law on the books - every single one - is unconstitutional.

That includes the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Its amendments in 1986. The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. The Bump Stock Ban of 2018 - and everything in between.

Yet, no matter what president sits in Washington D.C. - federal gun control enforcement keeps going up, and up, and up. That includes the current guy.

Once you see the numbers like I have every year, I think you''ll agree with me that people who think Donald Trump is the "2nd Amendment President" are as ignorant as people who think Barack Obama was the "Peace President."

Unfortunately, however, every year we point out these numbers, a lot of people make excuses for the president. But considering there should be ZERO federal gun control laws on the books, the number should absolutely not be growing. And the notion that it''s significantly higher than the awful gun-grabbing Obama should speak volumes.

For us, however, it''s the Constitution - every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Or, if you prefer to make a one-time donation rather than signing up for a new membership, you can do so online here:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/

You can also mail a check:

Tenth Amendment Center
PO Box 13458
Los Angeles, CA 90013


THANK YOU for reading, listening, watching - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

Michael Boldin, TAC

Hi Jon,

"One of the greatest evils incident to republican government was the spirit of contention and faction."

That''s how James Madison put it in the Philadelphia convention.

He mentioned "factions" as a great danger the following year in the Virginia Ratifying convention:

"On a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism."

And here''s how Madison defined factions in Federalist 10:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Sounds familiar, doesn''t it?

The "Father of the Constitution" was far from alone. 

The danger of factions was so widely accepted by the founding generation that it was expressly included in the revolutionary constitution of Pennsylvania in 1776 and the Vermont constitution of 1777.

In the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Fisher Ames put it this way:

"Faction and enthusiasm are the instruments by which popular governments are destroyed."

And in his Farewell Address, George Washington forcefully warned against the "alternate domination of one faction over another" as a "frightful despotism"

Dividing into two factions on just about every issue is exactly what Madison and many others warned us about. And it''s almost exactly what we face on almost every issue today.

Reminding people of warnings against factions from the Founders is always important - and in the political climate of today? It''s right near the top. 

That''s why I spent time going through these and other warnings on Monday''s episode of Path to Liberty. At the link below, you can find video and audio versions on a number of platforms - plus I''ve included a bunch of reference links so you can read and learn more too.

I hope you find it interesting - and educational.

Here''s the link, you know what to do:
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/factions-warnings-from-8-leading-founders/

Thank you so much for reading, watching, listening and sharing!

Concordia res parvae crescunt,
small things grow great by concord


--Michael Boldin, TAC

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

We''re facing the biggest government in the history of the world, and many people keep clamoring for more. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions - and it''s never enough. But the founders warned us that every exception would lead to more in the future.

While the odds are obviously stacked against those of us who stand for the constitution and liberty - it''s up to us to do what''s right.

And for us at the TAC, what''s right is pretty straightforward. The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Hi Jon,

In modern times, few recognize the name John Dickinson. Despite a lifetime of influence and accomplishment, he has truly become a figure overshadowed by other eighteenth century associates.

Dickinson dominated the American cause against British overreach from 1765 to 1775. In fact, he personally fashioned most of the arguments against Parliament's taxing policy.

Known as the "Penman of the Revolution," a title he was given for his 12 Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania against the hated Townshend Acts of 1767. They were widely read - they shaped and articulated the case for American rights throughout the Colonies

"We cannot be happy without being free," Dickinson wrote in Farmer Letter XII. "We cannot be free without being secure in our own property . We cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may take it away."

Although the "Farmer" necessarily focused on taxes, he addressed other political questions as well. One was how a free people should respond to governmental usurpation. Letter XII proclaimed, "A perpetual jealousy regarding liberty is absolutely required in all free states . Slavery is ever preceded by sleep."

He was the primary author of, among other papers, two petitions to the Crown and The Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking up Arms. The latter, he coauthored with Thomas Jefferson.

He organized and trained the Pennsylvania militia, serving as a colonel when his unit deployed to the front lines. When the British invaded Maryland and marched to capture Philadelphia, he carried a musket as a private in the Delaware militia.

Moreover, he chaired the congressional committee that drafted the Articles of Confederation: Our oldest draft of the Articles is in his handwriting. 

He was influential during the ratification debates over the Constitution with his Fabius letters - pushing forward a message that would eventually become the 10th Amendment:

"America is, and will be, divided into several sovereign states, each possessing every power proper for governing within its own limits for its own purposes, and also for acting as a member of the union," he wrote. 

Another insight into his character is offered by his 1781 decision to free his slaves. Most of the Founders opposed slavery. But Dickinson was one of the few to free his own slaves during his lifetime.

When Thomas Jefferson learned of John Dickinson's death in 1808, he wrote this in consideration of his contributions:

"A more estimable man, or truer patriot, could not have left us. Among the first of the advocates for the rights of his country when assailed by Great Britain, he continued to the last the orthodox advocate of the true principles of our new government and his name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the revolution."

I covered all his and more in detail on Monday''s episode of Path to Liberty. At the link below, you can find video and audio versions on a number of platforms - plus I''ve included a bunch of reference links so you can read and learn more too.

Here''s the link, you know what to do:
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/the-most-important-founder-most-people-have-never-heard-of/

Thank you so much for reading, watching, listening and sharing!

Concordia res parvae crescunt,
small things grow great by concord (from Dickinson!)


--Michael Boldin, TAC

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

We''re facing the biggest government in the history of the world, and many people keep clamoring for more. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions - and it''s never enough. But the founders warned us that every exception would lead to more in the future.

While the odds are obviously stacked against those of us who stand for the constitution and liberty - it''s up to us to do what''s right.

And for us at the TAC, what''s right is pretty straightforward. The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Get it today - the TAC''s 2019-20 State of the Nullification Movement Report (here)

"Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom!"

Writing as Candidus in the Boston Gazette on Oct. 14, 1771, Samuel Adams recognized an important and timeless truth. Turning a blind eye to an attack on liberty only guarantees that more attacks will follow in the future.

The same goes for violations of the Constitution, which the Founders often referred to as "usurpations," or the exercise of "arbitrary power."

History bears out this truth. Step-by-step, the federal government has expanded its own power and chipped away our liberties as most people turned a blind eye.

In his 1791 Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, Thomas Jefferson agreed with Adams in principle when he wrote:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." [emphasis added]

Today we face a federal government that has taken literally hundreds of thousands of steps beyond the boundaries drawn by the Constitution. Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we will never turn a blind eye, and step-by-step, we're pushing the feds back.

But turning things around from a government with tens of thousands of unconstitutional "laws," regulations, rules and orders on the books isn't going to happen in a single step either. 

As Jefferson put it in a 1790 letter to the Rev. Charles Clay:

"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, that we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time, and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good." [emphasis added]

To be blunt, anyone promising a silver bullet is lying to you.

Step-by-step. Inch-by-inch. Brick-by-brick. That's how we build a strong foundation for the Constitution and liberty.

The latest edition of the State of the Nullification Movement Report tells the current story of our efforts.

We like to think of it as a prospectus, of sorts - an "investor's guide" to our work here the Tenth Amendment Center. 

I hope you find it interesting, inspiring - and educational.

**Here''s the link, you know what to do:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/

Thank you so much for reading and sharing!

Concordia res parvae crescunt,
small things grow great by concord


--Michael Boldin, TAC

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we''re standing up against some of the most dangerous and unconstitutional programs in history. And I need your help right now.

NSA spying, gun control, the Federal Reserve and the DEA, EPA, BLM, TSA - I could make the list much longer, but I''m sure you get the point. An endless list of "laws," rules, orders, and regulations have transformed this country from a constitutional republic into...well something snowballing into a totalitarian nightmare.

To the establishment, your Constitution and your rights are nothing more than "intolerance."

Rather than teaching that the Constitution is a set of rules to LIMIT federal power, these people having been ramping up their all-out war on the Founders'' Constitution - and your liberty.

Tenth Amendment Center is not the first, but we''ve been the biggest proponent of using the Founders'' advice to stop unconstitutional programs through the states. As our friend Tom Woods put it, TAC "has done more than anyone in the world to advance the Jeffersonian principle of nullification."

I''ve got a great part time team and a bunch of amazing volunteers helping out, but I cannot continue this fight without the necessary funds to help educate millions of Americans on these attacks against the Constitution and liberty. 

I''m not asking for a lot, but when a lot of people like you join together and pitch in a little, it makes a huge difference. Would you please start a small (or large!) monthly donation to support our work today?

The First Bank of the United States was chartered for a period of 20 years by Congress on Feb. 25, 1791. Alexander Hamilton championed the bank, but it wasn't without its detractors. One of the most vocal opponents of the bank was Thomas Jefferson who argued that it was unconstitutional.

In his Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, Jefferson rested his argument on what became the Tenth Amendment, writing:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That  'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

He then went right to the obvious conclusion:

"The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution."

But Jefferson''s arguments went much broader. He covered claims of power under the Big three of today - Commerce, General Welfare and Necessary and Proper.

On commerce, for example, Jefferson pointed out that "to erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts."

On general welfare, he noted that "they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose."

And on necessary and proper - Hamilton''s leading argument - Jefferson pointed out that supporters of the national bank were making the case that it would make things more CONVENIENT to collect taxes.  

His response was, in essence, this: It''s the NECESSARY and proper clause, not the CONVENIENCE and proper clause. 

Here''s Jefferson''s take:

Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are 'necessary,' not those which are merely 'convenient' for effecting the enumerated powers.

Hamilton primarily based his defense of the national bank on the "necessary and proper clause," citing it as the source of these "implied" powers. While Jefferson relied on a very narrow definition of "necessary and proper," Hamilton used the phrase to milk implied powers out of the Constitution.

There''s a lot more to learn here, and today, I''ve got two options for you that I think you''ll find both interesting and educational.

READ IT
First, Mike Maharrey put together a pretty long article covering the entire debate and the arguments from both sides. You can find that here:

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/18/the-constitutionality-of-a-national-bank-hamilton-vs-jefferson/

WATCH/LISTEN
Next, I went through Jefferson''s views on commerce, general welfare and necessary and proper - plus an interesting overview of a debate at the Philadelphia Convention. It''s a 15 minute show - video and podcast editions here:

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/thomas-jefferson-the-constitution-vs-the-national-bank/

At the end of the day, Hamilton won, even though he was wrong. And today we have the biggest, most dangerous national bank in the history of the world.

My view? The only thing today's national bank - the federal reserve - is authorized to do under the Constitution is disband.

I hope you enjoy all this information as much as Maharrey and I enjoyed putting it together for you.

Thank you for being here with us!

Concordia res parvae crescunt,
small things grow great by concord


--Michael Boldin, TAC

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we''re standing up against some of the most dangerous and unconstitutional programs in history. And I need your help right now.

NSA spying, gun control, the Federal Reserve and the DEA, EPA, BLM, TSA - I could make the list much longer, but I''m sure you get the point. An endless list of "laws," rules, orders, and regulations have transformed this country from a constitutional republic into...well something snowballing into a totalitarian nightmare.

To the establishment, your Constitution and your rights are nothing more than "intolerance."

Rather than teaching that the Constitution is a set of rules to LIMIT federal power, these people having been ramping up their all-out war on the Founders'' Constitution - and your liberty.

Tenth Amendment Center is not the first, but we''ve been the biggest proponent of using the Founders'' advice to stop unconstitutional programs through the states. As our friend Tom Woods put it, TAC "has done more than anyone in the world to advance the Jeffersonian principle of nullification."

I''ve got a great part time team and a bunch of amazing volunteers helping out, but I cannot continue this fight without the necessary funds to help educate millions of Americans on these attacks against the Constitution and liberty. 

I''m not asking for a lot, but when a lot of people like you join together and pitch in a little, it makes a huge difference. Would you please start a small (or large!) monthly donation to support our work today?

According to Owen Ullmann in an op-ed published by USA Today, there are some unsung "heroes" in the battle against the coronavirus pandemic - the brave and courageous bankers at the Federal Reserve.

I think Ulmann misspelled "villains."

Ulmann writes that the Fed "has taken extraordinary steps to prevent the global economy from crashing into irreversible catastrophe as business around the world grinds to a virtual halt."

This is like praising the arsonist for trying to put out the fire he set by throwing more gasoline on it.

The Fed certainly has taken extraordinary steps. Just a few days ago, it announced QE infinity. It committed to buy an "unlimited" amount of U.S. Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities. It also announced a new program to buy corporate bonds for the first time ever.

In Ulmann's Keynesian wonderland this is fantastic news.

The Fed can create unlimited amounts of dollars - that's right, trillions, if required - to ensure that banks have enough funds to make emergency loans to businesses large and small."

Yes indeed. Printing new money out of thin air so that companies, governments and individuals already drowning in debt can borrow even more money is the prescription for saving the economy! Free money for everybody!

According to his bio, Ulmann has been covering the Federal Reserve for more than 40 years. Given that fact, it's staggering that he could remain so completely oblivious to the fact that these very same policies set up the 2008 financial crisis and that the Fed doubled-down after that crash to blow up an even bigger bubble, setting up the meltdown we're witnessing today. In simplest terms, the Fed wrecks the economy over and over again. Easy money created by the Fed blows up bubbles. Bubbles pop and set off a crisis. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

Meanwhile, the Ulmanns of the world cheer on this monetary malfeasance perched on a throne of ignorance.

Ulmann said because the Federal Reserve is "an independent agency" (I could write an entire article on the absurdity of calling politically connected bankers "independent.") the central banks "can move immediately and with creativity."

The Fed certainly did move immediately. It took months to fire all of its ammunition during the 2008 financial crisis. This time, it managed to empty its magazine in a matter of weeks. But there is nothing creative about anything Powell and Company have done. It's just the same play from the same played-out playbook it's been operating out of for decades - cut interest rates, print money out of thin air and hope the "stimulus" keeps the economic bubbles inflated.

Ulmann writes, "We can only hope that this unparalleled social and economic disruption is short-lived, and normalcy will return in the coming months. "

But things weren't normal before coronavirus. The bubbles blown up by the Fed were already leaking air and the Fed was already engaged in "extraordinary" monetary policy more than a year before coronavirus reared its ugly head. There never was "normal." The dot-com bubble wasn't normal. The housing bubble wasn't normal. And the most recent everything bubble wasn't normal either. These were all products of the monetary policy Ulmann praises today.

Peter Schiff summed it up in a recent videocast.

The economy was sick before the virus infected us. It was a bubble. There was nothing normal about that bubble. And the problem with bubbles is once they pop, they're not going to reflate. You need a new bubble. You need a bigger bubble. That's what the Fed did. They inflated the NASDAQ bubble. That popped. They inflated a bigger bubble in housing. That popped. And then they inflated a bubble in everything."

And now it's popped. The problem we face today is that there may not be another bubble to blow up. "There is nothing left to bubble up. It's over," Schiff said.

With all of the money being injected into the economy, the most likely scenario is a tsunami of inflation. But Ulmann insists we have nothing to worry about appealing to quintessential Keynesian claptrap.

Inflation is hardly a problem today; rather, the fear of deflation is the larger concern. And demand for dollars has never been greater around the globe. So creation of trillions of new dollars to keep the global economy solvent during this crisis is essential."

Yes. Fear falling prices. That would be a tragedy for the millions of people sitting at home not earning a paycheck during this shutdown of the economy.

Of course, this is a holy writ from the Keynesian bible. We must always and at all times have price inflation. In the Keynesian catechism, falling prices create a bad economy. But as economist Robert Murphy explained, it's the other way around.

Part of where this fear of deflation comes from is, historically, it's associated with very bad economies. So, during the Great Depression of the 30s, there were falling prices. And there are other periods where prices fell when things were bad, but I would argue that the causality was the other way around. Partly what was going on there was people were concerned because the economy was so terrible. And, so what do you do when you're afraid? You don't want to invest in companies and things like that. You rush to liquidity. You rush to hard money. That's why you often see in periods of panic people will rush to the money, so you see prices of all other things quoted in money fall. So, it's not that the falling prices caused the bad economy. It's the other way around."

Artificially pushing prices up - treating the symptom - doesn't cure the problem - monetary policy-induced malinvestment and asset bubbles.

But why didn't we see price inflation with $4 trillion in monetary stimulus the Federal Reserve pumped into the system during the Great Recession?

There are a number of technical reasons, but fundamentally, the Fed was able to reinflate the bubble after 2008 because everybody believed the QE and debt monetization was temporary. They believed that the Fed would "normalize" interest rates. They believed the Fed would shrink its balance sheet. But that never happened. As soon as the central bank pushed toward normalization, the stock market tanked and the Fed pivoted right back to rate cuts and quantitative easing. Nobody is going to believe that this round of money-printing is temporary. Money-printing to infinity is the new normal and that is a recipe for price inflation.

And even if you buy Ulmann's Keynesian myth, this crisis is fundamentally different from 2008, as Deutsche Bank macro strategist Oliver Harvey explained to Fox Business.

The 2008 crisis was a "classic demand shock," whereas this time around is "first and foremost a supply shock which is now spilling over to demand," he said. Consumers are staying away from restaurants and stores because governments told them to do so and wage earners aren't going to work because they are being told to stay home to avoid spreading and/or contracting the virus. What has happened is a "second-order response to a first-order shock to aggregate supply," he said, and trying to keep spending at pre-lockdown levels while keeping lockdowns in place will lead to more money chasing much less goods and services, resulting in "inflation, and a lot of it."

The reality is, Ulmann's heroes set us up for this meltdown and the cure will be more painful than the ailment. With heroes like this, who needs villains?

-Mike Maharrey
Communications Director, TAC

HELP US GET THE JOB DONE?

This is the kind of information we work to get out to more and more people every single day. Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Hi Jon,

Over the last few years, sound money has become one of the Tenth Amendment Center's primary policy areas. The objective; create an environment for currency competition that can potentially undermine the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money.

Why?

Because the Fed is the engine that drives the most powerful government in this history of the world.

Money is power, and the Federal Reserve serves as an unlimited spigot pumping dollars into the economy. It monetizes the federal debt and enables a level of borrowing that wouldn't be possible otherwise. Without the Fed, there would be no foreign wars. There would be no massive, unsustainable social programs. There would be no police state. There would be no corporate welfare programs. The federal government would truly be limited.

If you want to end unconstitutional, overreaching federal power - end the Fed.

All of this money printing and intervention also distorts the economy.

Before the crash in the first quarter of 2020, the stock market soared to record highs in 2019. The surging markets were a favorite subject of President Trump's Twitter feed. It was proof, according to him, that we experienced "the greatest economy in American history." 

To hear the president tell it, the world had never seen this kind of economic growth. But the truth is the world did see it - during the Obama administration. Economic growth during the Trump administration looked an awful lot like economic growth during the Obama era. In 2019, GDP grew by 2.3 percent. That wasn't even as high as Obama's best year. 

In historical terms, U.S. economic growth in 2019 was tepid.

The crash in early 2020 revealed the rot in the economy's foundation. While most people blame the coronavirus for the market crash, the pandemic was merely the pin that popped the bubble. In fact, we saw trouble in the stock markets in the fall of 2018, long before the coronavirus reared its ugly head. The Fed had to rush in a save the day by cutting interest rates.

So, if the economy wasn't really booming, why was the stock market setting records? And how did it revive so quickly after the coronavirus crash in March 2020?

Look no further than the Federal Reserve.

You simply cannot grasp the economic big-picture without understanding how Federal Reserve monetary policy drives the boom-bust cycle. The effects of all other government policies work within the Fed's monetary framework. Money-printing and interest rate manipulations fuel booms and the inevitable attempt to return to "normalcy" precipitates busts.

In simplest terms, easy money blows up bubbles. Bubbles pop and set off a crisis. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

The Fed wields enormous power through its ability to maintain a monopoly on money. It also creates a weakness because there are steps we can take to undermine and break down that monopoly power.

By passing laws that encourage and incentivize the use of gold, silver and cryptocurrency in daily transactions by the general public, state action has the potential to create a wide-reaching impact and set the foundation to nullify the Fed's monopoly power over the monetary system.

There are a number of concrete steps states can take to expand the market for gold, silver and crypto as money.

• Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender
• Eliminate Sales Taxes and Capital Gains Taxes on the Exchange of Money (Gold, Silver, Platinum)
• Establish State Gold Depositories
• Incentivize the use of cryptocurrency and eliminate all state taxes

As highlighted in the 2019-2020 State of the Nullification Movement report, three states passed laws to encourage currency competition and Texas continued to ramp up operations at its gold depository.

The Big Picture

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10 that, "No State shall.make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

Currently, all debts and taxes in states around the country are either paid with Federal Reserve notes (dollars), authorized as legal tender by Congress, or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury - almost none of which contain gold or silver.

In a paper for the Mises Institute, constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said that when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government's monopoly on money.

"Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a 'reverse Gresham's Law' effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes).

"As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state's treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state - as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money - and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions."

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people.

All of these state efforts open the door for a serious push-back against the Fed and its monopoly on money. But state action alone won't accomplish the goal.

Ultimately, it will be up to everyday people to take advantage of these state laws and actually start using gold, silver and cryptocurrency as money.

--Mike Maharrey, TAC

Please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading, listening, watching - and your support!

Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

Hi Jon,

Thomas Jefferson called the Tenth Amendment "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."

This tells us the federal government was meant to be very limited. In fact, you should barely even know it exists.

Yet here we are - obsessing over virtually anything and everything as a do-or-die national issue.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson warned us, "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Why?

Because power corrupts. And as Lord Acton said, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sadly, Americans have let politicians in Washington D.C. have almost absolute power. States have become mere subsidiaries of D.C. Your rights are now subject to the whims of the political class - whether headed up by Team A or Team B.

They may be fine people (or not) but you can't trust even your favorite politician with power. You can't and shouldn't trust any of them. And ultimately, if you give them power, it will corrupt.

The Constitution was intended to prevent that.

The founding generation established the Unites States by a written Constitution because they did not trust politicians with power. They wanted it limited. And they wanted those limits explicit.

You probably have an owner's manual for your car or truck. Hopefully, you've read it. If you follow the instructions, it will increase the life of your vehicle. You disregard that owner's manual at your own peril.

You may get away with using a different kind of oil or ignoring those maintenance schedules for a while, but eventually, it will catch up with you, and you'll find yourself waiting by the side of the road for a tow truck.

The Constitution is the owner's manual for your government. You ignore it at your own peril. And trust me, allowing politicians to exercise unlimited power over your life will be far more painful than a towing bill.

The question is what will you do with this information? Will you put the owner's manual on your shelf and forget about it? Or will you apply it to your politics?

The Constitution should stand at the center of your political activity. Before asking, "Should the federal government." you should ask, "Can it constitutionally." Consult the owner's manual and if the answer is, "No!" oppose that action.

And I mean oppose that action even when you support it in theory.

That's just what George Washington advised in his Farewell Address, "let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

James Madison followed that advice on his last day in office when he vetoed an infrastructure spending bill he was in favor of - because he saw it as an exercise of powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

That's the kind of integrity that's almost non-existent in Washington D.C. today.

A friend of mine said something once that was pretty funny and really wise.

Don't ever give a politician any power you wouldn't want your ex-spouse to have.

Most people are more wrapped up in party, policies and personalities than they are in principles. So, when their guy or gal is in power, they don't worry about things like limited government or constitutional restraints. They enjoy the fact that their guy can get stuff done and implement policies they like.

There's a huge problem with this approach to politics.

Your guy or gal isn't going to be in charge forever. At some point, the bad guys and gals are going to win an election. And when that happens, every little bit of power you let your guy have will be in their hands.

The problem isn't who's in charge. The problem is that the power exists to begin with. Never forget, every power you give government will eventually be in the hands of people you don't like.

We must insist that the politicians follow the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses. Abide by the owner's manual.

Live by it.

Or watch your freedoms die by it.

***

I hope you enjoyed reading this short article as much as I enjoyed putting it together for you. With over 10,000 articles and blogs on the TAC website, there''s a LOT more where that came from.

So before you go, if you''d like to give us a hand and help us reach and teach even more people about the Constitution and liberty, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!

--Mike Maharrey, TAC

Hi Jon,

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields cops from liability for actions taken in the line of duty unless they violate rights "clearly established" by existing judicial precedent. No statute exists granting qualified immunity. It evolved over time based on a series of Supreme Court cases.

In practice, qualified immunity makes it extremely difficult to prosecute police officers for using excessive force or committing other acts of misconduct.

As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case Malley v. Briggs, qualified immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Reuters called it "a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force."

But how did we end up with qualified immunity in the first place? The legal doctrine evolved over time thanks to federal judicial activism and was applied to every police department in the United States through the incorporation doctrine.

The very existence of qualified immunity reinforces an ugly truth. We can't trust the federal government to protect our rights. It almost always defers to government power.

We can trace the origins of qualified immunity back to the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The act was codified into law by 42 U.S. Code ?1983 - "Civil action for deprivation of rights." In effect, it allows any U.S. citizen to sue a state or local official in federal court for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."

This was one of the first federal laws passed based on the 14th Amendment. The statute arguably overreaches the intent of the 14th. Regardless, for the first time, it created an avenue for individuals to hold state officials accountable through the federal courts.

Although ?1983 did not specifically provide for an immunity defense, lawyers for government officials often argued for immunity based on common law, arguing it was implicit in the statute. Early on, immunity defenses were built on a case-by-case basis and not based on settled federal court precedent.

But in the 1967 case Pierson v. Ray, the Supreme Court cemented the doctrine of qualified immunity into federal jurisprudence. The Court held that government officials who violate the law or constitutional limits on power in "good faith" can raise "qualified immunity" as a defense.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion.

"Under the prevailing view in this country, a peace officer who arrests someone with probable cause is not liable for false arrest simply because the innocence of the suspect is later proved. A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does. Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, the same consideration would seem to require excusing him from liability for acting under a statute that he reasonably believed to be valid but that was later held unconstitutional, on its face or as applied."

The next step forward for qualified immunity came in the 1971 case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The case opened the door for individuals to sue federal government officials for violations of rights given that ?1983 only applied to state and local officials. Justice William Brennan wrote, "While there is no explicit right to file a civil lawsuit against federal government officials who have violated the Fourth Amendment, this right can be inferred. This is because a constitutional protection would not be meaningful if there were no way to seek a remedy for a violation of it."

In 1982, Harlow v. Fitzgerald established qualified immunity for federal government officials and set the stage for the current definition of qualified immunity. The Court held that government actors are entitled to qualified immunity due to "the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority."

"Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." [Empashis added]

Today, courts analyze qualified immunity cases under a three-part test established in Graham v. Connor (1989). Ilan Wurman explained the test in a paper titled Qualified Immunity and Statutory Interpretation published by the Seattle Law Review.

"The test requires courts to undertake an objective analysis of the circumstances surrounding the use of force. Even if a court decides that the use of force was unreasonable and thus unconstitutional, the second step of the inquiry is the qualified immunity analysis: Was it 'clearly established' that this kind of force in this kind of circumstance is unconstitutional? If not, the officer escapes liability." [Emphasis added]

Grahm also established that all police excessive force cases involving arrests, searches, or investigatory stops must be evaluated under the Fourth Amendment, not the due process clause of the 14th.

Wurman argues that the "clearly established" test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.

"The qualified immunity test poses an almost insurmountable analytical problem-the permutations are infinite. A given situation is rarely exactly like another. There will always be sufficient distinguishing facts to decide that there was no clearly established law."

Bivens and subsequent cases all involved federal government officials, but eventually, the court effectively abandoned the statutory process in ?1983 and began hearing cases against state agents directly under the Constitution. As Wurman explained, "Immunity doctrine traditionally looked to the common law to derive immunities in ?1983 cases. This approach was lost, quite possibly as a result of historical accident, as the Court began to hear Bivens actions directly under the Constitution and not under any statute."

Later, he writes, "[The Court] subsequently invented immunity doctrine out of whole cloth in other federal-officer cases and exported that doctrine to the ?1983 cases rather than importing the relevant doctrine from the state-officer cases."

The rationale for federalizing state and local police misconduct cases was good-intentioned. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871, it was next to impossible for African-Americans to get a fair shake in many state courts and government officials could abuse their rights with virtual impunity.

But the end-result of centralizing power in the federal government was worse. Now it's next to impossible for any person in any state to get a fair shake when challenging police misconduct. The federal courts have cemented a system in place that gives law enforcement officers almost complete immunity and allows them to violate any individual's rights with virtual impunity.

Through the incorporation doctrine that applies the federal Bill of Rights to state and local governments, this system protects police officers in every city, county and state in the U.S. from Honolulu, Hawaii to West Quoddy Head, Maine.

A decentralized system where cases were heard under state law and state constitutions would undoubtedly have problems. Some states would probably extend almost complete protection to law enforcement officers just like the federalized system. But surely some would be better.

The lesson here is pretty clear. Government protects its own. Centralized power almost never benefits the average person in the long-run. And we cannot count on federal courts to protect our rights.

--Mike Maharrey, TAC

Please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading, listening, watching - and your support!

Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

Hi Jon,

We''re living under the largest government in history - and that expansive power is seen - and unseen - all around us.

Mass, warrantless surveillance.
Civil Asset Forfeiture
Expanding the Commerce Clause
Gun Control

There''s plenty more, but these are some big ones - and you probably won''t be surprised to know these have all been an outgrowth of the so-called "war on drugs."

In truth, it''s really a war on the Constitution, a war on liberty, and ultimately - a war on you.

But it didn''t start yesterday. 

Woodrow Wilson signed the first major federal anti-drug measure into law in 1914. It put taxes on opiates and coca. The next big one came from FDR in 1937 - another tax, this time on "marihuana."

Remember the old adage: The power to tax is the power to destroy. 

It''s in the nature of government to propose just a small tax on a few people - then expand that power in big ways in the years to come.

The income tax itself - was really sold as a small, temporary wartime measure. And look where that got us today.

George Mason warned us - "Those who have power in their hands will not give it up while they can retain it. On the contrary we know they will always when they can rather increase it."

Always. That''s what government does.

And through some ever-expanding views of the "interstate commerce clause" - the federal government, through the Supreme Court, has trashed major portions of the Constitution in the name of the war on drugs.

Clarence Thomas hammered this home in his 2005 Raich dissent - "If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption... then Congress'' Article I powers have no meaningful limits"

We''ve had a barrage of attacks on the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1963, it created an "exception to the warrant requirement" in the fourth amendment, out of thin air, allowing law enforcement in all 50 states to conduct what''s known as "no-knock warrants."

In 1984, it attacked private property again - saying that landowners have no "reasonable expectation of privacy in their land..." even if it''s hidden from public view.

In 1982 - the federal courts all but did away with a warrant requirement in many situations involving a car.

All these were drug war cases - and they all resulted in more government power that was never authorized by the Constitution.

Which brings us to the 2nd Amendment.

The number of federal gun control laws authorized by the Constitution - is ZERO.

But prohibition gave them the excuse they needed anyway.

It was, after all, the bootlegging gangs that emerged out of alcohol prohibition that served as the inspiration for the first major federal gun law: The National Firearms Act of 1934. A year after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 passed on a similarly abusive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

One that power is established - as George Mason told us - that power would always grow.  And on gun control, the rest is history. We can point to the Gun Control Act of 1968, its amendments in 1986. The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, the Bump Stock ban of 2018 - and so much more.

In the end, if you are concerned at all about liberty, the economy, the Constitution and the power of the Federal Government - you cannot ignore the US government's longest and most costly "war" - the War on Drugs.

I covered this all and more on Wednesday''s episode of Path to Liberty. At the link below, you can find video and audio versions on a number of platforms - plus I''ve included TEN additional reference links so you can read and learn more too.

I hope you find it interesting - and educational.

Here''s the link, you know what to do:
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/the-constitution-on-the-war-on-drugs/

Thank you so much for reading, watching, listening and sharing!

Concordia res parvae crescunt,
small things grow great by concord


--Michael Boldin, TAC

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

We''re facing the biggest government in the history of the world, and many people keep clamoring for more. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions - and it''s never enough. But the founders warned us that every exception would lead to more in the future.

While the odds are obviously stacked against those of us who stand for the constitution and liberty - it''s up to us to do what''s right.

And for us at the TAC, what''s right is pretty straightforward. The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

On this date 222 years ago, the Kentucky legislature took a bold stand against federal overreach with the passage of resolutions penned by Thomas Jefferson.

It's one thing to claim the Constitution limits the federal government to its specific list of powers. It's another thing to hold the federal government to that list. So, what do we do when the federal government oversteps its constitutional limits?

Opponents of the clearly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts had to grapple with this question way back in 1798.

During the summer of that year, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law, four acts together known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. With winds of war blowing across the Atlantic, the Federalist Party majority wrote the laws to prevent "seditious" acts from weakening the U.S. government. Federalists utilized fear of the French to stir up support for these draconian laws, expanding federal power, concentrating authority in the executive branch and severely restricting freedom of speech.

Two of the Alien Acts gave the president the power to declare foreign U.S. residents an enemy, lock them up and deport them. These acts vested judicial authority in the executive branch and obliterated due process. The Sedition Act essentially outlawed criticizing the federal government - a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Recognizing the grave danger these acts posed to the basic constitutional structure, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison drafted resolutions that were passed by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures in Nov and Dec 1798, respectively. The "Principles of '98" formalized the principles of nullification as the rightful remedy when the federal government oversteps its authority.

The Alien and Sedition Acts outraged many Kentuckians. Several counties in the Commonwealth adopted resolutions condemning the acts, including Fayette, Clark, Bourbon, Madison and Woodford.

A Madison County Kentucky militia regiment issued an ominous resolution of its own, stating, "The Alien and Sedition Bills are an infringement of the Constitution and of natural rights, and that we cannot approve or submit to them."

Several thousand people gathered at an outdoor meeting protesting the acts in Lexington on August 13.

The push to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts was not simply the act of opportunistic politicians. It rose out of the passionate demands of the citizenry in Kentucky, as well as Virginia.

Jefferson penned the original draft of the Kentucky Resolutions within a month of Congress passing the Sedition Act.

"That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes - delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

After outlining each constitutional violation and overreach of federal power, Jefferson called for action - nullify now!

"Therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them." [Emphasis added]

Jefferson sent former Virginia ratifying convention delegate Wilson Cary Nicholas a draft of the resolution, likely hoping the state legislator could get them introduced in Virginia. In October 1798, Wilson indicated that state representative John Breckinridge was willing to introduce the resolutions in Kentucky. Breckinridge suffered from tuberculosis and made a recuperative trip to Sweet Springs, Va. late in August of that year. Nicholas likely gave the Kentucky lawmaker a copy of Jefferson's draft during that trip.

On Nov. 7, 1798, Gov. James Garrard addressed the Kentucky state legislature, noting the vehement opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts. He said Kentucky was, "if not in a state of insurrection, yet utterly disaffected to the federal government." And noted that the state "being deeply interested in the conduct of the national government, must have a right to applaud or to censure that government, when applause or censure becomes its due," urging the legislature to reaffirm its support of the U.S. Constitution while "entering your protest against all unconstitutional laws and impolitic proceedings."

That same day, Breckinridge announced to the House he intended to submit resolutions addressing Garrard's message. The following day, the Fayette County lawmaker followed through, introducing an amended version of Jefferson's draft. Most notably, Breckinridge omitted the word nullification from the actual version considered by the Kentucky legislature, seeking to moderate the tone of the resolution. Removal of the nullification reference apparently didn't bother Jefferson, and in fact, did little to change the fundamental thrust of the resolution. By declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional, null and void, the Kentucky legislature voted on a nullification resolution, even with the actual word omitted.

The resolution passed the House on Nov. 10 with only three dissenting votes. The Senate unanimously concurred three days later, and Gov. Garrard signed the resolution on Nov. 16.

The resolutions didn't end the Alien and Sedition Acts, but they laid a philosophical foundation to resist them through further state action.

The following day, Jefferson sent a draft of his resolution to James Madison, writing, "I inclose you a copy of the draught of the Kentuckey resolves. I think we should distinctly affirm all the important principles they contain, so as to hold to that ground in future, and leave the matter in such a train as that we may not be committed absolutely to push the matter to extremities, & yet may be free to push as far as events will render prudent." [Emphasis added]

Kentucky followed up with a second resolution affirming its position in 1799, notably including the word "nullification," omitted in the final version of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 passed by the state legislature.

"The several states who formed that instrument (the Constitution), being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."

Jefferson's principles have endured for over 220 years despite relentless attacks and demagoguery. Americans have appealed to the ideas brilliantly articulated in the Kentucky Resolutions to protect free speech, to promote economic justice, to stop military conscription and to protect the rights of blacks during the fugitive slave era.

Jefferson's words leave no doubt - nullification was the rightful remedy, and it remains so today.

--Mike Maharrey, TAC

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

Hi Jon,

In 2014, the Tenth Amendment Center dove headfirst in the fight against unconstitutional federal surveillance when it spearheaded efforts to turn off the water at the NSA facility in Bluffdale, Utah, and cut off other critical state and local services to other NSA facilities.

Although NSA spying remains the most high-profile warrantless surveillance program, the federal government has created a national surveillance network that extends well beyond the operation of this single agency. In fact, state and local law enforcement have become vital cogs in the national surveillance state. 

State, local and federal governments work together to conduct surveillance in many ways. As a result, efforts to protect privacy at the state and local level have a significant spillover effect to the national level.

While continuing efforts to cut off resources to NSA facilities in recent years, we also focused on other state-federal surveillance partnerships that feed into the national spy-state.

ALPR/License Plate Tracking

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by Automatic Licence Plate Readers (ALPRs) operated on a state and local level. They've engaged in this for nearly 10 years, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.

Currently, six states have placed significant restrictions on the use of ALPRs. Activists are expected to push several states to consider similar restrictions in the next legislative session.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Surveillance

Facial recognition is the newest frontier in the national surveillance state. Over the last few years, the federal government has spearheaded a drive to expand the use of this invasive technology. At the same time, some state and local governments have aggressively pushed back.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of laws banning or restricting the use of facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering biometric data. Simply put, data that doesn't exist cannot be entered into federal databases.

In 2019, California enacted a law that prohibits a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. This includes body-worn and handheld devices. This new law had a significant impact. After its enactment, San Diego shut down one of the largest facial recognition programs in the country in order to comply with the law.

Washington state passed a bill that would require a warrant for ongoing and realtime facial recognition surveillance. The bill doesn't completely ban the use of facial recognition and there is some concern about how police will interpret the statute, but it takes a good first step toward addressing the issue.

New York passed a bill that would place a moratorium on the use of facial recognition in schools. At the time of this report, it is awaiting Gov. Cuomo's signature.

There have also been a large number of local facial recognition bans implemented in the last year, particularly in California and Massachusetts.

Stingrays and Electronic Data Collection

Cell site simulators, more commonly called "stingrays," are portable devices used for cell phone surveillance and location tracking. They essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the cell tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up all communications content within range of that tower. The stingray will also locate and track any person in possession of a phone or other electronic device that tries to connect to the tower.

In 2019, New Mexico barred warrantless stingray spying in its Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The law requires police to obtain a warrant or wiretap order before deploying a stingray device, unless they have the explicit permission of the owner or authorized possessor of the device, or if the device is lost or stolen.

In the 2020 session, New Mexico expanded protections under that 2019 law by limiting the retention and use of incidentally-collected data.

Also in 2020, the Maryland legislature passed a bill to ban warrantless stingray spying by adding provisions to existing statutes limiting warrantless location tracking through electronic devices. The bill addresses the use of cell-site simulators, requiring police to get a court order based on probable cause before deploying a stingray device. The bill also bars police from using a stingray to obtain communication content and spells out explicit criteria law enforcement must meet in order to justify such an order.

Two other states also expanded their restrictions on warrantless government access to electronic data last year.

Utah passed a bill expanding its electronic data protection by barring law enforcement agencies from accessing electronic information or data transmitted to a "remote computing service" without a warrant based on probable cause in most situations. In effect, it prohibits police from accessing information uploaded into the "cloud" without a warrant. The state previously prohibited both the use of stingrays and accessing data on a device without a warrant. 

Illinois also expanded its protection of electronic data in 2019. Under the old law, police were required to get a court order based on probable cause before obtaining a person's current or future location information using a stingray or other means. The new law removes the words "current or future" from the statute. In effect, the law now includes historical location information under the court order requirement. 

This is an overview of the most recent moves to limit surveillance and chip away at the ever-growing national surveillance state. To get more details on state efforts to undermine government spying, along with other unconstitutional federal actions and programs, make sure you read our latest State of the Nullification Movement report. You can download it for free HERE.

We hope you found this report interesting and educational - there are others to come soon on other issues too.

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)


--Michael, Mike, Dave, TJ, Michael 
and the rest of the TAC Team

Government Help: Breaking Your Legs and Giving You a Wheelchair
by Mike Maharrey (read this article in your browser)

Remember all of the government bailouts and stimulus in response to the 2008 financial crisis? Conservatives threw a fit. The Tea Party movement grew out of worry about the impact of all of the stimulus, money-printing, and the taxes they knew were coming down the pike.

My, how things have changed in 12 short years - and with a Republican sitting in the Oval Office.

Today, pretty much everybody supports the stimulus and bailouts gushing out of Washington D.C. even though they dwarf anything imagined during the Obama administration.

"This is different!" so we're told. Government policy set up the 2008 financial crisis and a lot of "bad actors" got bailed out. The Obama stimulus undermined the free market!

But now we're being told that you can't pin this economic meltdown on the government. You can't blame anybody for coronavirus. This crisis really is too big for the free market to handle. Government needs to step in.

But the truth is big government set the stage for this economic meltdown just like it set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis. This is a prime example of the government breaking your legs and then giving you a wheelchair.

Don't let the irony get lost on you. Government intervention in the economy set things up for a crisis like this. Now virtually everybody thinks we need the government because the free market can't handle a crisis like this. Even people who claim to favor free markets are pushing for the bailouts.

A healthy economy could weather the coronavirus. In a truly free market, businesses and consumers would have savings. These government shutdowns would stress a healthy economy, but they wouldn't kill it.

But we don't have a free market.

We have a central bank that manipulates interest rates and a bloated government that taxes, borrows and spends us into oblivion. As a result, the United States went into the coronavirus pandemic with a bubble economy built on a mountain of debt.

By holding interest rates at artificially low levels for more than a decade after the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve incentivized borrowing. As a result, consumer debt, corporate debt and the national debt were all at record levels before COVID-19 reared its ugly head.

Meanwhile, the federal government was already spending trillions of dollars to prop up the economy. The Trump administration was on track to run a $1 trillion budget deficit in 2020 before the pandemic. This is the kind of budget deficit one would expect to see during a major economic downturn. The federal government has only run deficits over $1 trillion in four fiscal years, all during the Great Recession. The current Congress and the Trump administration were approaching that number before the pandemic, despite having what Trump kept calling "the greatest economy in the history of America."

The Fed facilitates this deficit spending by monetizing the debt - buying U.S. Treasury bonds on the open market with money created out of thin air. Without the Fed backstopping the financial system and effectively printing money, the U.S. government wouldn't have the ability to borrow and spend as it does.

Meanwhile, the tax burden necessary to sustain big-government spending policies stresses family and corporate budgets to the breaking point. When people have to hand a big percentage of their income to the taxman, it becomes that much more difficult to save for a rainy day - or a government shutdown of the economy.

And why save when you can borrow? Artificially low interest rates make it easy to borrow and pointless to save. You get no return on your savings. Might as well borrow and spend now.

This is all well-and-good until the economy hits a bump in the road like the coronavirus pandemic. Suddenly you have no income, no savings and a massive pile of debt. It doesn't take long to go from a hiccup to a full-blown crisis.

This is where the United States finds itself today. After a decade of easy-money and borrowing, coupled with out of control spending in Washington D.C., the coronavirus shutdowns popped the economic bubble that the government helped create. Now the air is coming out and everybody is turning to the government to bail them out.

That's not to say the coronavirus shutdowns would have been a walk in the park if the economy wasn't already broken. But a healthy economy could have weathered the storm. If the Fed hadn't intervened in the economy, people wouldn't have been able to bury themselves in debt. If the government wasn't levying high taxes on corporate earnings, companies would have had more money saved to push through a crisis. If people didn't rely on government programs like Social Security for their savings, they could have saved money on their own and they would have had it to tap into during this crisis.

This is the exact same set of policies that set up the 2008 financial crisis. The government and the central bank doubled-down after '08 with some political backlash from the right. This time, the government is quadrupling down with pretty much everybody on board. Peter Schiff summed up the situation perfectly in a recent podcast.

"It's the government that crippled the economy in the first place. The solution - the answer to that -  is not to have a bigger government crutch so we can hobble around. How about getting rid of all of that government? Liberating the economy from the dead weight of government."

THE CONSTITUTION: EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME. NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES.

We''re facing the biggest government in the history of the world, and many people keep clamoring for more. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions - and it''s never enough. But the founders warned us that every exception would lead to more in the future.

While the odds are obviously stacked against those of us who stand for the constitution and liberty - it''s up to us to do what''s right.

And for us at the TAC, what''s right is pretty straightforward. The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Probably the least referred to section in the Bill of Rights is the Third Amendment. Though it has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, there has never been an opinion based on it. This might suggest that it has little to no relevance today. But some scholars argue that in fact the spirit of the amendment is rooted in the right to privacy.

The Third Amendment reads as follows:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Unlike much of the Bill of Rights, it's difficult for the average American today to understand why the founders included this protection. However, at the time it was written, it addressed an issue that caused profound apprehension. Prior to the War of Independence, British troops were stationed in Boston; under a law known as the Quartering Act, ordinary citizens were required to house soldiers in their homes.

Enduring a hostile occupying force in your community is detestable enough, but to be forced to provide its troops with food and lodging added insult to injury and was a profound intrusion into the private lives of regular Americans.

The issue was so troubling for the colonists that Thomas Jefferson included it among the grievances leveled against the British Crown in the Declaration of Independence - "quartering large bodies of armed troops among us."

Long before the Bill of Rights was drafted, many state constitutions included prohibitions on standing armies and quartering troops. It is for this reason that History Professor Gordon S. Wood at Brown University writes that "there was nothing new about the Third Amendment; it simply declared what had become conventional American wisdom."

While there have been numerous SCOTUS opinions on other amendments such as the right to free speech or the right to keep and bear arms, the Third Amendment has never received legal scrutiny. Wood writes that despite this, "the amendment has some modern implications. It suggests the individual's right of domestic privacy-that people are protected from governmental intrusion into their homes; and it is the only part of the Constitution that deals directly with the relationship between the rights of individuals and the military in both peace and war-rights that emphasize the importance of civilian control over the armed forces."

In that sense, the Third Amendment bears similarities with the Fourth Amendment, which reads:

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.

Incidentally, a 1993 paper by Tom W. Bell published in the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal argues that the Third Amendment's origins "arguably run deeper than those of any other protection in the Bill of Rights," calling it a "uniquely British invention, well rooted in Anglo-Saxon law."

The first known quartering restriction was in London's charter given by King Henry I in 1131. Bell notes that billeting wasn't as much of an issue in Anglo-Saxon times because there was no standing army, with military defenses conduct via militia similar to that of Colonial America. It was only with the centralization of political power under William the Conqueror's reign following the Norman conquest of England that billeting became an issue.

"English law has traditionally held the rights of homeowners in high regard," Bell writes.

The quartering of troops in private homes was not a minor controversy; Bell credits its with triggering the Glorious Revolution that ousted King James II.

Fears of a standing army and the accompanying involuntary billeting of troops were also used by anti-federalists during debates over the U.S. Constitution. At the Maryland Ratifying Convention, Samuel Chase warned that the new federal government have the authority to house troops in private homes; this complemented other discussions at the time over whether the new federal government would lead to a permanent standing army.

"Although the Anti-Federalists did not ultimately prevail, they gave voice to a widespread concern," Bell writes. "Eight of the state ratifying conventions sent proposals for a bill of rights to Congress. Five of these proposals contained protections against quartering."

At the root of the Third Amendment is the principle of separation between private citizens and their property from the government via its armies. It wasn't just that the soldiers were occupying their space and consuming their resources. Their presence gave them unfettered, unrestricted access to people's activities, their going abouts, their day-to-day routines. It gave rise to the inability of ordinary people to set boundaries or control what government was privy to.

The whole concept of privacy is to maintain personal boundaries - the ability to keep things to ourselves. Quartering violates this principle. Though it specifically addresses soldiers, the Third Amendment's essence encompasses more than just the military: government should not have the power to violate people's hearth and home by placing strangers inside it. In our modern sense, that includes spying and surveillance that tracks Americans everywhere they go, including their homes.

This view is held by other legal minds, including trial attorney Quintus Curtis. In a review of the film Snowden, he remarked that "at least implicit in the Third Amendment is the idea that U..S citizens have a fundamental right to be free of unwanted violations of their privacy and personal spaces.  If so, the NSA's surveillance programs cut to the heart of what the Constitution is supposed to stand for."

Federal government surveillance of private citizens not only lacks constitutional authority, it betrays the spirit of the Third Amendment. In principle, there is no difference between a group of soldiers sitting in your living room and the federal government listening in on a variety of devices that allow them to track where you go, what you say, and what you do.

The tragedy is that the Third Amendment's relevance has dwindled since the Bill of Rights was first ratified. The silver lining is that the lack of prior SCOTUS opinions means there's no prior legal jurisprudence warping its meaning to grant greater federal power. There's also an opportunity for its meaning to be rediscovered.

--TJ Martinell, TAC

Before you go, please don''t forget to check out the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. For as little as 2 bucks a month, you can help us continue our work - taking a stand for the Constitution and liberty no matter what team is in charge in Washington D.C.

JOIN US HERE

THANK YOU for reading - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

Hi Jon,

If you want to end unconstitutional, overreaching federal power - end the Fed. It's the engine that drives the most powerful government in the history of the world.

As Ron Paul put it back in 2011:

The only way to counteract this problem is to break the government monopoly on the issuance of money. 

In other words - we need competition with the Fed''s fiat "money," the US Dollar.

He offered 3 steps that need to be taken to move things forward for liberty: Eliminate legal tender laws, eliminate laws prohibiting private mints, and eliminate capital gains taxes and sales taxes on gold and silver coins.

Today, following a combination of his advice for sound money and the strategy of leading founders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - we''re working to pull the rug out from under the fed on a state, local and individual level.

For example, remove sales tax on the exchange of gold and silver. Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and you were charged a 35 cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that's essentially what a sales tax on gold and silver does. 

It creates a pretty significant roadblock to using gold and silver as intended - as money. They make it more expensive. There are now more than 3 dozen states that have removed this tax, and we''re working for more in 2021 and beyond.

We''ve also seen the establishment of the Texas Bullion Depository - which is now open for business and is expected to build an e-commerce component. Ultimately, depositors will be able to use a bullion-funded debit card that seamlessly converts gold and silver to fiat currency in the background. This will enable them to make instant purchases wherever credit and debit cards are accepted.

And a free market version of this is already open for business in Utah. Plus, we''ve seen millions worth of the new GoldBack getting out there - a voluntary, local currency alternative made of spendable gold.

If you''d like to learn more about these efforts, Mike Maharrey put together an article based on our annual State of the Nullification Movement Report that will give you a good overview of the sales taxes, the depository, and even a little on cryptocurrency. And I did a podcast about it yesterday that also covered Ron Paul''s advice, capital gains taxes, and the voluntary local currency alternative - which I think is a great innovation for liberty.

Find links for both below:

HELP US TAKE A STAND!

We''re facing the biggest government in the history of the world, and many people keep clamoring for more. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions - and it''s never enough. But the founders warned us that every exception would lead to more in the future.

While the odds are obviously stacked against those of us who stand for the constitution and liberty - it''s up to us to do what''s right.

And for us at the TAC, what''s right is pretty straightforward:

The Constitution - every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

Thank you so much for being a part of this with us! We couldn''t be more grateful for your support - large or small - it all helps us make a difference:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Or, if you prefer to make a one-time donation rather than signing up for a new membership, you can do so online here:
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/

You can also mail a check:

Tenth Amendment Center
PO Box 13458
Los Angeles, CA 90013


THANK YOU for reading, listening, watching - and your support!


Concordia res parvae crescunt
(small things grow great by concord)

Michael Boldin, TAC