The Answer is Simple

If you are one of the people that believe our future is being jeopardized by an out of control federal government the fix is simple and laid out clearly in the US Constitution. The fix is the Tenth Amendment. The text is short, clear, and concise:

“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.”

All acts, laws, and dictates of the federal government must be delegated to it in the constitution. Where is it delegated that the federal government should be a pension fund, medical fund, or arbiter of welfare money? Any attempt to justify 90% of what the federal government currently does is tortured logic. There are 18 specific powers. None of them include the power to take the wealth of some and give to others.

The founders were very conflicted in the creation of the United States. They knew that too much central power would turn to tyranny, and not enough central power would leave the states vulnerable to foreign interests and could undermine the ability of the states to thrive economically and independently. It is critical to note that the Constitution was intended to limit the central power of the government. Every argument about the ratification discussed the potential of the central government to infringe on the rights of the individual and states. That is why the Bill of Rights was added and especially the Tenth Amendment.

The founders even argued about the Bill of Rights. Many didn’t even believe it was needed because the Constitution was inherently a document limiting central power. It was assumed that the people would hold a central government in check. In the day, it was not uncommon for people to violently revolt against the tax collector or representative of any central authority. Limiting power was absolutely the intent. To think the central government was a means to happiness or prosperity would have been laughed at and rejected hands down. But fortunately for us today, many did not trust a central authority and would not ratify without the Bill of Rights. If not for these ten amendments we would not have the country we have today.

There has been a concerted effort not to teach the founding in context. If the education of our youth included the true intent of the US Constitution and the founders, we would be in much better shape today. The bright side is many people are starting to realize how right the founders were. There is a growing movement to utilize the Tenth Amendment and the process of nullification. Nullification is simply the states and people rejecting unconstitutional laws.

Rejecting unconstitutional laws utilizing the Tenth Amendment and nullification is the simple answer. Once this movement gains greater ground it will take hold. To learn more go to www.tenthamendmentcenter.com. You will be glad you did…

Ideas VS Identity Politics

Here’s an idea; how about we create a system that allows for nearly full employment at livable wages? Good idea? If this idea came true would it be good for only Republicans or Democrats? Would political party matter if the idea worked and put Americans back to work?

Here’s an idea; how about we create a system that gives women first priority on all jobs in the marketplace. Until we know there are no women that want the job we can then open it up to men. Would political party matter? Most likely yes because this is not an idea that would be created to benefit the masses, it is more likely a policy to reward a specific group. This particular group being women and the two parties thrive on implementing policies that increase their power amongst the citizenry.

I could continue with the examples but when it comes to government policies, they are often designed by politicians to support constituents. It is called identity politics. Republicans play identity politics with religious right to life groups promising they will use the hammer of the federal government to impose rules on family matters like pregnancy and abortion. Democrats play identity politics with the gay community by promising to support gay marriage and adoption by using the hammer of the federal government to force people to accept these positions.

Using the hammer of the federal government is used by both of the political parties. It is simply that the democrats have more groups they represent than the republicans do. Identity politics is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. The constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government and was originally focused on the things that were of common interest to the states. The national defense, foreign treaties, and a place states could resolve their disputes between each other.

But today the federal government has devolved into a hammer between the states and citizens and is destroying the common fabric of our nation. It must end before it destroys us. It will take a new way of thinking but is a message that all thinking individuals could rally around.

We must start electing governors that are willing to nullify federal law and embrace the ninth and tenth amendments to the constitution. The talk about the Republican Party having to moderate is not the answer. What Republicans must do is to give up the hammers it uses to get their ideas codified at the federal level. Abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, school vouchers, etc… must be looked at in a new way.

Most of the most controversial issues are codified in the tax code and by Supreme Court decisions. Do we believe that a Marriage Amendment at the federal level will make people respect marriage more? Marriage is good for our society for the creation and raising of children, but should the federal government be used as a hammer to enforce it? Of course not, marriage is mostly a religious sacrament and we should allow churches to manage it the way they believe is in their best interest. If a church wants to support gay marriage let them. Go to another church. If you believe abortion is the taking of a life make your arguments to convince people of your view. By using the hammer of the federal government to infringe on people’s private, difficult, and personal matters you lose any credibility of truly wanting to reduce the federal government. Wanting to regulate life upon conception can’t be managed without infringing on other people’s rights and the federal government is not an entity we should want so involved in our personal lives. Conservatives must be consistent or they lose.

If we really want to reduce the federal government, we must argue against every area that the federal government should not be. Freedom has costs. If you are a Christian you believe we will all be judged. We should live by example and resist the hammer of the federal government to get our messages and policy implemented.

We can become a much greater nation when we focus on our own lives and limit the hammer of the federal government to implement policies. When we commit to limit the federal government to its original intent we have to put down our hammers as well. You can be opposed to policy but we must accept what it means to be a free society. We also can fight battles in the states where we have more impact and if we choose, we can live in any state that most closely reflects our values. We first need to reduce the influence of the federal government.

The way we do that is to argue and fight for a constitutional republic by using the tenth amendment and putting all of our hammers aside.     

I support “The Federal Healthcare Nullification Act” for Colorado…

I am a member and supporter of the Tenth Amendment Center and its founder Michael Boldin. He has partnered with WeRefuse.com to set in motion a constitutional repeal of the unconstitutional healthcare “reform” bill, forced through by an out of control congress, with this petition drive. If elected Governor of Colorado I will spearhead this process in Colorado.

Here are some excerpts from the press release:

"We recommend a different path, one advised by prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - nullification," said Boldin. Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned."

"In partnership with WeRefuse.com, the Tenth Amendment Center has announced the release of their model legislation for such state-level action, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act. The Act would codify in state law that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States...is hereby declared to be invalid...shall not be recognized...is specifically rejected...and shall be considered null and void and of no effect" within the boundaries of any state enacting it. It also mandates that it "shall be the duty" of the State's legislature "to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement."

"It's time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around," said Boldin. "Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keeping our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they'd be and where they belong...close to home."

We need to support the effort and stop this federal government.

Nullification is only part of the solution…

Hats off to the Attorney General of Virginia who has vowed to challenge the Healthcare Reform Bill on constitutional grounds the minute it is signed into law by the President. There are also 36 States that have hinted at nullification of the bill at the state level. But that is only part of the solution.

“Nullification is a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory is based on a view that the sovereign States formed the Union, and as creators of the compact hold final authority regarding the limits of the power of the central government.”

“Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the Federal Bench are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the national Government's power. A more extreme assertion of state sovereignty than nullification is the related action of secession, by which a state terminates its political affiliation with the Union.”

The dilemma with nullification is if a state deems Healthcare unconstitutional, the federal government is still going to tax the states to pay for the program. That is why in my platform as Governor we are taking the next step to truly reign in the central government’s power by cutting off the funding that allows the federal government to expand its power.

The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified February 3rd, 1913. It “allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results.” It reads, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” But all taxation to fund the federal government still must be for constitutionally authorized purposes.

The real solution to holding the federal government to its constitutional requirements is not only nullification, but a limit on what the federal government is allowed to tax the individual tax payers of the states. We have taken as a given, that no matter what the federal government decides to tax us, we must pay it. If the federal government chooses to tax us at 90% of our income will we allow it? Does the Sixteenth Amendment allow the federal government to ignore its constitutional limitation as stated in Article 1 section 8? Of course not, otherwise we have no constitutional limitations. But that is how the federal government acts today.

It is the role of the Governors and State Legislators to not only nullify healthcare but to limit the amount of taxation that can be imposed on the citizens of their states. The federal programs that are nullified must also include the provision that no additional taxation may be derived from the state for the purpose of the program. Otherwise the states are in the dilemma of paying for a program that the citizens of the state are being forced to pay for.

We need a constitutional convention among the states, not to change it, but to enforce it, and reset the power where it was intended to be; in the United States not in Washington DC…