Category Archives: State Nullification

A paradigm shift?

Posted on by

I didn’t watch Obama last night. I wasn’t interested in listening to his pontifications and lies. Listening to the top-of-the-hour news this morning, I was vindicated in skipping Obama’s brag fest.

Instead, I went to a small meeting to listen to a friend who is a political activist and heads a state-wide organization. I’d rather listen to him than Obama.

I’ve heard my friend speak before. He’s always been knowledgeable and has numerous inside contacts in Jeff City. He original topic was the upcoming legislative session in Jefferson City. I was particularly interested in HB 188, a bill designed to attack grassroots organizations, like the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, by forcing them to disclose their membership lists and donors.

That was his intent. And…he did cover a few of the items coming forth in Jeff City. We were a small group last night. Many of the usual members didn’t come. Some are snowbirds and were out-of-state in more warmer climes. When questions started from the floor how we, as individuals, could be more effective lobbying in Jeff City, his planned talk went out the window.

In retrospect, the diversion was good. He explained the legislative process that many did not understand. How opinions of legislators can be changed. He cited the successful veto-override effort for SB 523 in the last session. We discussed various techniques how individuals can influence legislators…and how some tactics, yelling at staffers over the phone, can back-fire.

The discussion spread far and wide and as I listened I began to hear an underlying concept, something I’d heard from others outside Missouri…the federal government is becoming irrelevant. Every new tyranny from Washington has an opposite and equal reaction within the states. The result of the reaction is more ‘nullification’ bills being filed in state legislatures. More states joining the Convention of States movement. More states resisting, and in many cases, succeeding, edicts being issued from Washington.

Prior to the Civil War, an individual’s primary loyalty was to his state. After that war, a person’s loyalty, supported strongly by the triumphant North, was to the country as a whole and to the central government. That viewpoint has continued until Obama was elected. (For some, it was earlier but I’ll not argue the point.)

What I am hearing from many across the country is a return to the primacy of state loyalty. The growing view that it must now be the states who defend their citizens from the tyrannical acts of the central government. It matters not the issue, be it education and common core, the EPA and water-rights, Obamacare and the forced expansion of medicaid, or the failure to secure our borders. Here, there, people’s loyalties are shifting and I don’t yet think the liberals have noticed. Yet.

I’m of two minds on this paradigm shift. I was born, as was my wife, in Illinois. I have relatives who live in the oppressive state, still. But, I’m glad my wife and I left over forty-five years ago. Missouri is now my state, my home, and I’m proud of it and our ‘Pub controlled legislature.But I’m still loyal to the nation as a whole—not the FedGov, but to the United States. I once swore an oath to defend the nation and the Constitution. I’ve not recanted that oath. But the Constitution no longer rules the federal government. Loyalty to the Constitution is not loyalty to the FedGov.

Note above, I said ‘Pub controlled state legislature, not conservative controlled. Not all of the ‘Pubs in Jefferson City are conservatives. It’s a work-in-progress to change them to conservatives…or replace them with conservatives.

I’m sure the libs will call those who have shifted their primary loyalty to their states racists, fascists, Nazis, the usual liberal diatribe. They overlook one central fact: conservatives can live quite well without the federal government in their lives. The liberals and social parasites, cannot. That, perhaps, may be the real divide within this nation.

Facebook

Milestones

Posted on by

Missouri House Bill 1439, The Second Amendment Protection Act, passed in the Missouri Senate last night, April 30, 2014, on a vote of 23 to 8. It had passed the House earlier, on April 12, 2014, on a vote of 119 to 41.

According to an email issued by Ron Calzone, the Senate made some language changes that will require another vote in the House. He expects that vote to occur today. The changes are minor language clarifications that do not affect the purpose of the Bill.

April 30, 2014

HB 1439 “passed” in the House 110 to 41 on April 12th, now it has passed the Senate by a vote of 23 to 8. Both votes are enough to override a veto by the Governor.

A few minutes before 7:00 on Wednesday, the Missouri Senate voted 23 to 8 to “third read and pass” HB 1439, the Second Amendment Preservation Act.

Since the Senate made changes to the House version of the bill, the House has to vote on it one more time to accept those changes. If they don’t accept the changes, both the Senate and House will have to vote again.

The Senate made the changes we desired — we put teeth back in the bill and removed the troublesome controlled substances language.

Some other friendly amendments were added prior to taking the bill to the floor, and a couple of technical fixes were added on the floor. Although the changes were not part of the underlying Second Amendment Preservation Act, they are all germane to the bill title and good for gun rights.

The final language of HB 1439, as passed the Senate, will be available here: http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB1439&year=2014&code=R in a day or two. Be sure to click on the link that says “Senate Sub”, not “Senate Comm Sub” to get the latest round of amendments.

The SAPA portion of the bill can also be viewed here: http://www.mofirst.org/?page=issues/nullification/SAPA/HB1439-Detailed.php

Hopefully, the House will take up HB 1439 as early as tomorrow and pass it without further amendments – then it can be sent to the Governor

We’ll have more new as it develops.

For liberty,

– Ron

One more milestone passed on the road to full passage in Missouri. The vote totals are important. They show enough support in the Legislature to override Jay Nixon’s expected veto.

***

I’m glad a local State Representative won’t be running for office again. Why? Here’s why: He allowed a vote on, and voted for, Medicaid Expansion in Missouri, a requirement for the full implementation of Obamacare.

MEDICAID EXPANSION — ‘Medicaid bill wins symbolic vote, inches forward in Mo. House,’ Virginia Young: “In what Missouri House Insurance Committee Chairman Chris Molendorp acknowledged was a symbolic move, a Medicaid expansion measure gained its first committee endorsement of the year today. Molendorp, R-Belton, and the four Democrats on his committee combined to recommend a wide-ranging bill that would expand the public health insurance system to about 300,000 low-income adults. The vote was 5-2, with five Republicans absent. … The 121-page proposal adopted by the committee is modeled on a plan developed by Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City. It attempts to address GOP opposition to Medicaid expansion by requiring a host of changes, such as photo IDs for food stamp recipients and more transparent billing practices for hospitals. But with only 11 days left in the legislative session and GOP leaders opposed to the bill, it’s unlikely to go any further. Molendorp acknowledged as much after the committee vote. — PoliticMo Email, May 1, 2014.

Molendorp says the passage was symbolic. The truth of the matter is that the proposal should have never reached this point. Missouri can’t afford Medicaid Expansion. The Feds will provide funds for three years. After that, the ENTIRE cost burden would fall on the state. We can’t afford such gross unfunded mandates.

***

Impeachment efforts against Governor Jay Nixon reached another milestone yesterday with the completion of public comments in the Missouri House Judiciary Committee. The Committee Chairman, Representative Stanley Cox (R-Sedalia), said he would poll committee members to see if they wanted to vote and move forward.

IMPEACH NIXON? — ‘Mo. House committee considering vote on impeaching Nixon,’ PoliticMo: “The Missouri House Judiciary Committee heard final testimony on Wednesday in favor of resolutions moving to impeach Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. Rep. Stanley Cox, a Sedalia Republican who chairs the committee, said he will now begin meeting with committee members to consider whether to send the resolutions on to the full House. “I’m going to see if there is a majority of the committee that wants to vote,” Cox said. “I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote. I’m going to talk to the other committee and see how they’re going to be.

“The two days of hearings, which began last week, were to hear three Republican-backed resolutions against Nixon. One, sponsored by Rep. Nick Marshall, alleges Nixon violated the Missouri Constitution’s provision banning same-sex marriage in issuing an executive order allowing the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept tax returns from same-sex couples filing jointly with the federal government. It was heard last week. The second, filed by Rep. Mike Moon, was critical of delayed calls for special elections in three vacant House seats. The third, by Rep. Rick Brattin, accused the Nixon administration of releasing private conceal-carry weapons permit source documents to federal authorities. They were heard by the committee on Wednesday. As they did last week, several committee members, including a handful of Republicans, expressed concerns that any legal issue with action from the governor might be better handled in the judicial system. Moon said impeachment hearings are by definition political and should be seen as a constitutional check on the executive branch. … 

“Brattin faced perhaps the most critical reception from the committee. He alleges Nixon’s administration violated privacy concerns in releasing data to the federal government in response to subpoenas, but did not state any specific crime Nixon had committed himself. Instead, Brattin accused Nixon of turning his attention away from the issue and allowing his administration to break the state law banning implementation of REAL ID. But Nixon did act, and let his director of the Department of Revenue go (he resigned at the height of the controversy last year). Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, noted that the court and the state auditor had sided with Nixon on the controversy in noting that he did not break any laws. In other words, two branches of government have sided with Nixon.” http://bit.ly/1fzoDP3 — PoliticMO Newsletter, May 1, 2014

***

While this might not be a milestone, it is revealing about the character of John Boehner. The writer of the article below agrees with my statements that I have written over the last few years.

Is John Boehner Stupid, Bought, or Playing for Other Side?

,

Something is wrong with the most powerful Republican in the United States Congress. He is either stupid, bought and paid for by crony corporate interests, or he’s on the other side (a Democrat posing as a Republican). Because nothing else explains the news that the GOP intends to pass immigration reform (i.e. amnesty) this year.

Nothing.

You might be wondering how I know it’s “amnesty?” Because to pass it through Harry Reid’s Senate and to avoid a veto from President Barack Obama, it must include some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants (i.e. future Democratic voters). Nothing could ever pass Harry Reid’s Senate that doesn’t include some form of amnesty, allowing Democrats to wear the crown of conquering heroes to the Latino community and therefore garner more votes for Team Obama in November.

Democrats are about to be crushed. They are drowning. They are desperate to shuffle the deck. Why would any sane GOP leader throw them a life preserver?

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer – the ultimate liberal – is winking and nodding on Sunday morning TV shows like it’s a done deal.

Do you think he’s winking because he’s just agreed in the backroom to a deal that hurts Democratic voters? Do you think the president that has, for all intents and purposes halted deportations, would agree to any bill that sells illegal immigrants down the river? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in…Mexico.

Now let’s examine why even discussing (let alone passing) any immigration bill is self-destructive, stupid and political suicide for Republicans.

First, Democrats are on the run. They are about to be destroyed in November. Every poll shows it. Every bit of common sense tells the same story. Every conversation with average middle class Americans proves it. Obamacare has ruined Obama and the Democratic Party. The latest poll shows Obama at 41 percent approval.

There are literally no voters left to support Obama who aren’t being bribed with a government check. Just as I reported earlier this year, Obama’s support among the actual taxpayers, business owners and homeowners of America is darn close to zero.

Knowing this, why would the leader of Congressional Republicans want to change the conversation? Why would he want to let Obama off the hook? Why would he discuss anything but Obamacare for the next six months? Doesn’t Boehner want to win? When you’ve got the opposition on the run, why would you lift your boot off their neck? Makes me wonder which team he’s playing for. What about you?

Why wouldn’t any sane GOP leader keep talking Obamacare 24/7 for six months in a row, until the clock runs out? Millions have lost their coverage; millions more have had premiums raised; millions have lost their doctors; everyone that can think is steaming mad.

The vast majority of people who got free insurance from Obamacare are virtually 100 percent government-addicted, welfare-loving, food stamp-loving, dependent Democratic voters. Obama hasn’t picked up one vote. But he’s gotten millions of independents mad as a hornet’s nest.

AP

AP 

To change the conversation now would be dereliction of duty. If this were the military, Gen. Boehner would be relieved of his command and brought up on criminal charges. He is harming his own troops. He is purposely losing the war. He is pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. Who does that?

Secondly, my grandfather taught me about how to treat your loyal customers. He was a successful small business owner. He always said the key to success was “the customer is always right.”

Why would Boehner poke a stick in the eyes of his best customers? Why would he mock conservatives? Why would he turnoff his loyal conservative base now, on the precipice of a landslide in November? It defies logic.

Third and most importantly, if everyone “in the know” believes the GOP is on the verge of a massive landslide victory (and they are), why would you even think of negotiating an immigration reform bill now?

Think about it. Now it’s a lose/lose. Obama and Reid hold all the cards. But starting in January 2015, with a GOP Senate and House, with Obama an embarrassed, emasculated lame duck, the GOP would hold all the cards.

What Republican leader would be dumb enough to pass the bill now? Wait until 2015 and instead of begging for crumbs, the GOP is dictating the terms of Obama’s surrender. What sane leader would trade a win/win for a lose/lose scenario?

Into this situation steps Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), leader of the party that practices shooting itself in the foot. Boehner is theoretically on our side, yet he wants to let Democrats off the hook for Obamacare, change the conversation to something divisive and controversial, demoralize and anger his own best customers, hand a moral victory to Obama, inspire the Democrats’ core voters, and negotiate from the worst possible position, instead of waiting just a few months to negotiate from the best possible position.

Does any of this make sense to you? So I ask you…

Is John Boehner stupid, bought and paid for, or on the other side? He’s either not thinking clearly, or he’s not on our side. No matter your answer, it’s now clear Boehner has to go.

Normally, I take anything from The Blaze with a large dose of salt. All too often, Beck and his crew have their tin-foil hats on too tight. But…this time they agree with me and say the same, paraphrased, as have I. As the adage goes, the quality of an article is directly proportional to the degree it agrees with you.

Facebook

The Return of the Friday Follies

Posted on by

This has been an interesting week—interesting as in the old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” Obamacare continues to disintegrate. The GOP Establishment howls, “See! See!”, as if it vindicates their ineptness and lack of leadership opposing it and the dems in general.

More dem pols are attempting to distance themselves from Obama and Obamacare, Mark Pryor of Arkansas is an example. The twenty and thirty-somethings, those whom the libs depended upon to fund Obamacare, are rebelling. That subject, rebellion, revolution, was spoken aloud this week by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute before a congressional judiciary committee and was supported, obliquely, by law professor Jonathan Turley, an Obama supporter.

Frankly, I, like any sane citizen, would rather not live in interesting times. Unfortunately, we, collectively the citizens of this nation, have allowed the situation to occur. And, the longer the condition is allowed to continue, the worse it will be and the more difficult it will be to correct.

If it can. That was the underlying concern espoused by Michael Cannon and Jonathan Turley.

But, I’ve already written about those subjects. Today is Friday, December 6, 2013. Tomorrow is Pearl Harbor Day. I wonder if it will be remembered by the intelligentsia in Washington…or used as another campaign event by the democrats and Obama celebrating our slide into totalitarianism and a police state, of a one-party rule like that of the old Soviet Union.

***

The GOP Establishment as acquired an ally in their war against the Tea Party and their party’s core conservatives—the US Chamber of Commerce. That alliance created a reaction. The Club for Growth has joined the fray on the side of conservatives.

New battlefront emerges in war between Republicans, tea party

By Seth McLaughlin – The Washington Times, Thursday, December 5, 2013

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s new push to get involved in Republican primaries by defending incumbents against tea party challengers could actually make it easier to unseat them, according to the head of the influential Club for Growth.

Chris Chocola, the club’s president, said the battle between the chamber, which he said advocates big business, and the rank-and-file free-market conservatives whom his group represents is well underway as Republicans try to field their candidates for the 2014 congressional elections.

The latest fight is shaping up in Idaho, where the chamber announced this week that it will run ads defending incumbent Rep. Michael K. Simpson, a Republican, against a challenge by lawyer Bryan Smith. The club has endorsed Mr. Smith.

“The chamber is pro-business and we are pro-free market, and that is the difference,” Mr. Chocola told The Washington Times. “The opposing views are not new, but there seems to be some heightened interest from the establishment types to get involved in a race like Idaho. If that heightened interest continues there might be more chances that we end up on opposite sides.”

The column continues, here, at the website.

Not only has the anti-conservative campaign of the GOP establishment drawn out national organizations such as the Club for Growth, it has also started a wave of grassroots activism and reactivation of local Tea Party groups rallying to fight that establishment from both parties.

***

Speaking the truth. It is a dangerous occurance, regardless of the validity of the statement. Here in the U. S., it can get you fired. You’d think the consequences would be worse is socialist Europe and the UK. If you thought that, you’d be wrong.

PRUDEN: British press horrified as London’s new mayor dares to proclaim the truth

By Wesley Pruden – The Washington Times, Thursday, December 5, 2013

LONDON — Free speech is good, but sometimes dangerous in practice. Saying what you think can get you sacked in America even if it’s something that most people think. Practicing free speech here in the old country is risky, too, but saying the wrong thing appears to be a misdemeanor, not yet a felony.

Boris Johnson, the irrepressible mayor of London, said some provocative things the other day to a private think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, and political London — mostly the scribblers, anyway — has been in a tizzy since.

The mayor playfully invoked Gordon Gecko, who exists only in a movie, and his economic philosophy that “greed is good” to make the point that intelligence, ambition, inspiration and above all perspiration is the irresistible driver of prosperity for everyone. He observed that some people are smarter than others, and that the 2 percent pulls the 98 percent into the good life. To the consternation of conservatives in the government and the left-wing columnists and commentators, the mayor is still upright and walking around.

The 98 percent should be grateful to the 2 percent and not spend a lot of time cultivating resentment. “Some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy,” he said, “and keeping up with the Joneses is, like greed, a valuable spur to the economy.” This reflects an unremarkable understanding of what was once called human nature before the liberals — “progressives,” they call themselves now — decided that the state can install a better nature than God did.

Mr. Johnson then went even further. He said nice things about Margaret Thatcher, who has never been forgiven in certain of these precincts for pulling Britain out of the deep coma imposed by a welfare state that had reduced an empire to “a little England.”

The mayor sometimes talks less like a mayor than a newspaper columnist, which he is as well, for The Daily Telegraph. The squeals from the left and the harrumphs from the right after his Maggie Thatcher remarks may be less about the interpretations of his message than about the folly of electing a newspaper columnist to high office. Instead of bashing the rich, he wrote the other day, “we should be offering them humble and hearty thanks. It is through their restless, concupiscent energy and sheer wealth-creating dynamism that we pay for an ever-growing proportion of public services.”

You can read more here.

***

The topic, State Nullification, is a continuing subject in many conservative circles. It appeared in a Washington Times column this week in a discussion of the overbearance and possible Constitutional violations by the government and the NSA. Nullification, contrary to popular thought, is not supported in the Constitution. It was, however, discussed in the Federalist Papers and in those papers, advocated as a possible solution to the excess of the federal government.

The Constitution and state-level resistance to NSA spying

Wednesday, December 4, 2013 – A View from the Tenth by Michael Boldin

LOS ANGELES, December 4, 2013 –  In Federalist #46, James Madison advised state-level actions in response to unconstitutional or unpopular federal acts. He wrote that a successful strategy includes a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”

As reported by US News, and linked at the top of the Drudge Report yesterday, a coalition of organizations is working to put that advice into practice in response to mass NSA surveillance programs.

The activists would like to turn off the water to the NSA’s $1.5 billion Utah Data Center in Bluffdale, Utah, and at other facilities around the country.

 Dusting off the concept of “nullification,” which historically referred to state attempts to block federal law, the coalition plans to push state laws to prohibit local authorities from cooperating with the NSA.

Draft state-level legislation called the Fourth Amendment Protection Act would – in theory – forbid local governments from providing services to federal agencies that collect electronic data from Americans without a personalized warrant.

This morning, at the TIME Swampland blog, Nate Rawlings picked up on the story as well, but opined that the “effort is sure to be stymied by federal authorities.”

Such an opinion assumes that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to stop states from opting out of federal acts and programs, or has a history of doing so.

Both assumptions are incorrect.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly supported the ability of states to opt out of federal acts and programs. The legal principle is known as the “anti-commandeering doctrine,” and says that the federal government cannot force, or “commandeer,” states to enact, administer or enforce federal regulations.

The relevant court cases are:

* 1842 Prigg: The court held that states were not required to enforce federal slavery laws.

* 1992 New York: The court held that Congress could not require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Sebelius: The court held that states could not be required to expand Medicaid even under the threat of losing federal funding.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a state to help the federal government do anything.

The 4th Amendment Protection Act is a state-level bill which seeks to put the anti-commandeering doctrine into practice. The Act would thwart NSA surveillance by banning a state from participating in any program that helps or utilizes NSA surveillance.  This would include providing natural resources, information sharing, and more.

The question, then, is this: Do enough states have the will to follow the advice of the “Father of the Constitution?”

Yes, that is an interesting question.

***

And for a parting shot, let this item from FOX News be a reminder what we, the conservatives, are opposing.

OBAMA SAYS ONE-PARTY CONTROL NEEDED
President Obama told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that Republicans are to blame for the failings of ObamaCare and other national problems. Obama said making concessions on his signature entitlement program was “out of the question.” The way forward, the president said, was to end divided government. “In our history, usually when we’ve made big progress on issues, it actually has been when one party controlled the government for a period of time,” he said. “The big strides we made in the New Deal, the big strides we made with the Great Society – those were times when you had a big majority.” — Chris Stirewalt, Digital Politics Editor, Fox News.

Facebook