By Dawn Forbes (Golden Isles Tea Party, GA) [as submitted to the legislators in Atlanta]
We are here today to remind our government who the government belongs to – it belongs to “We the People.” This building (Georgia Capitol) houses our last defense against the Federal Power grab that is happening in Washington. They need to know that we will support them as they move to protect our state.
There are several options open to the great state of Georgia, and we should pursue them all. State Senator Judson Hill has proposed a Georgia Constitutional Amendment that will protect Health Care Freedom of Choice in Georgia. Also, we need to urge Attorney General Thurbert Baker to join with at least 13 other states to sue over the “Nebraska Compromise.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_deal_states We’ve sent a letter to the Attorney General requesting this action, signed by 22 Tea Party and 9/12 Groups from across Georgia. As of yet, there has been no reply from his office. [UPDATE 1/28/10: Nelson has since removed this deal off of the table and has suggested that all states receive the same deal.]
But, possibly our best and strongest weapon could be nullification. Nullification is where a state says that a Federal law is null and void within that state because it is outside of Federal jurisdiction. This process has been used to return power to the states on issues from Firearm Freedom Laws to Medical Marijuana Laws. Montana and Tennessee have both nullified Federal Gun laws in their states for firearms that are not involved in interstate commerce, and 15 other states have introduced the legislation. Also, 15 States have nullified Real ID, including Georgia – with 20 more introducing legislation, and 13 states have laws regarding the use of Medical Marijuana which effectively nullifies Federal Marijuana laws. (Check www.tenthamendmentcenter.com for full information.) Nullification is a powerful tool that can allow each state to control its own destiny - both conservative and liberal states. The Federal government is NOT the supreme law of the land – the US Constitution is! DC cannot be allowed to step outside the guidelines of the U.S. constitution. Alexander Hamilton said “"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid.” And, Thomas Jefferson said, "The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants."
We must encourage our state government to fight for State’s Rights and, more importantly, the individual’s rights as guaranteed in the US Constitution, as we work to return our government back to “We the People.”
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
13th Colony Patriots Denied Admittance to Judicial Building, Police Called and Shadowed Group
by Elizabeth Mancha
13th Colony Patriots and Golden Isles Tea Party organized a rally at the steps of the Capitol building in Atlanta on January 15, 2010. Patriots from Brunswick, Savannah, Atlanta, Tifton and others turned out to protest the proposed health care legislation. In addition, the crowd of approximately 100 people rallied to encourage Georgia state legislators to defend the rights of the states and refuse to allow, what would be, an unprecedented transfer of power from the states to the federal government. Following the rally, attendees separated and entered the Capitol building, Coverdell and Judicial buildings to deliver letters to a number of our elected officials.
A group that included the founder of 13th Colony Patriots, Elizabeth Mancha, three former military men (one of whom is in his late 80s), a former chaplain in the Air Force Reserve, and a retired Asst. Professor at Atlantic Armstrong Atlantic State University, entered the Capitol Building without incident and visited the office of Governor Purdue and others who proclaim to serve the residents of the great state of Georgia.
We then went the Judicial Building in order to hand-deliver letters to the office of the Attorney General, and candidate for Governor, Thurbert Baker.
Upon entering the building, the security guard asked the group who we were there to see. We told her we were there to see Baker. She asked us what we were there to see him about. I thought that was a rather odd question for her to ask, as it was really none of her business. However, we told her we wanted to talk to him about the proposed health care legislation and that we would like him to protect our State’s rights. She asked if we had an appointment. We told her we did not. We told her that we would be happy to drop the letters off to his secretary or Mr. Darrell Robinson. She said no.
She walked out of sight for a moment and returned to the security station. She said that she “was told” that we could put our letters in an envelope for Baker. We again told her that if he was not available that we would like to see his secretary or Mr. Robinson. She stood back from her station and started pacing back and forth. I searched my folder and pulled out letters addressed to Baker. I thought I had brought Baker’s phone number with me but could not locate it. She told us we had to leave. She said that we couldn’t “stand there and write a letter” and repeated that we had to leave. We told her that we were simply attempting to enter a public building, paid for with our tax dollars, so we could deliver letters to an elected official or his staff. We also told her that we had just visited the Governor’s office without an appointment and couldn’t understand why we couldn’t just drop a couple of sheets of paper to Baker’s office.
I could not find Baker’s phone number in my papers and attempted to reach my husband so he could call Baker’s office. Since I could not reach him I started writing a note to Baker. I asked the guard for her name several times. She refused to give it to me. She continued to pace back and forth. We heard the guard communicate on her phone that there was “a code” something, I can’t remember what. I continued to write my note with shaking hands. The time was 2:50pm.
Approximately five armed men in uniform entered the building and virtually surrounded us. I was still writing my short note to Baker. One of the officers asked the guard what was wrong. She told him that we wanted to see Baker and we didn’t have an appointment. I told the officer that we would like to see his secretary or Mr. Robinson to deliver letters to them. The female officer became increasingly agitated each time I reminded her that we would be happy to drop the papers off to Baker’s secretary or Mr. Robinson. The lead officer would not allow us to enter. I reminded him that it was a public building, but he said we had to leave. I asked him for his name. He identified himself as Officer Willingham. I asked the entry guard for her name again and she finally said, in a very reluctant tone, “Officer Lester”. Because she spoke so softly I asked for it again. She didn’t answer. I asked again, but she wouldn’t answer.
It should be noted that, during our visit, we observed two other people who entered the building and were allowed access. They were not asked for ID or if they had an appointment, however, one person in our group recalls them having badges.
We alighted the building to find two other officers arriving on the scene. We met up with other people who attended the rally as we walked to the next door building in order to continue delivering letters to State legislators.
We entered the Coverdell building and joined Dawn Forbes, founder of Golden Isles Tea Party, who was identifying building and room numbers for letter delivery with the aid of a guard. Much to our surprise, the same officers that surrounded us earlier entered the building and surrounded much of our group. One of the officers told another guard at the front desk, to call him if we gave them any problems.
We did not give anyone any problems before or after the seven police officers were called to remove us from a building that we pay for with our tax dollars, with the simple intent to deliver a couple of pieces of paper.
We didn’t yell at anyone, we weren’t threatening in anyway, we didn’t shout, we didn’t name call, we didn’t throw anything, we didn’t use abusive language, we didn’t touch anyone, yet we were determined to deliver our letters. We were simply trying to exercise our civil liberties and we were denied.
13th Colony Patriots and Golden Isles Tea Party organized a rally at the steps of the Capitol building in Atlanta on January 15, 2010. Patriots from Brunswick, Savannah, Atlanta, Tifton and others turned out to protest the proposed health care legislation. In addition, the crowd of approximately 100 people rallied to encourage Georgia state legislators to defend the rights of the states and refuse to allow, what would be, an unprecedented transfer of power from the states to the federal government. Following the rally, attendees separated and entered the Capitol building, Coverdell and Judicial buildings to deliver letters to a number of our elected officials.
A group that included the founder of 13th Colony Patriots, Elizabeth Mancha, three former military men (one of whom is in his late 80s), a former chaplain in the Air Force Reserve, and a retired Asst. Professor at Atlantic Armstrong Atlantic State University, entered the Capitol Building without incident and visited the office of Governor Purdue and others who proclaim to serve the residents of the great state of Georgia.
We then went the Judicial Building in order to hand-deliver letters to the office of the Attorney General, and candidate for Governor, Thurbert Baker.
Upon entering the building, the security guard asked the group who we were there to see. We told her we were there to see Baker. She asked us what we were there to see him about. I thought that was a rather odd question for her to ask, as it was really none of her business. However, we told her we wanted to talk to him about the proposed health care legislation and that we would like him to protect our State’s rights. She asked if we had an appointment. We told her we did not. We told her that we would be happy to drop the letters off to his secretary or Mr. Darrell Robinson. She said no.
She walked out of sight for a moment and returned to the security station. She said that she “was told” that we could put our letters in an envelope for Baker. We again told her that if he was not available that we would like to see his secretary or Mr. Robinson. She stood back from her station and started pacing back and forth. I searched my folder and pulled out letters addressed to Baker. I thought I had brought Baker’s phone number with me but could not locate it. She told us we had to leave. She said that we couldn’t “stand there and write a letter” and repeated that we had to leave. We told her that we were simply attempting to enter a public building, paid for with our tax dollars, so we could deliver letters to an elected official or his staff. We also told her that we had just visited the Governor’s office without an appointment and couldn’t understand why we couldn’t just drop a couple of sheets of paper to Baker’s office.
I could not find Baker’s phone number in my papers and attempted to reach my husband so he could call Baker’s office. Since I could not reach him I started writing a note to Baker. I asked the guard for her name several times. She refused to give it to me. She continued to pace back and forth. We heard the guard communicate on her phone that there was “a code” something, I can’t remember what. I continued to write my note with shaking hands. The time was 2:50pm.
Approximately five armed men in uniform entered the building and virtually surrounded us. I was still writing my short note to Baker. One of the officers asked the guard what was wrong. She told him that we wanted to see Baker and we didn’t have an appointment. I told the officer that we would like to see his secretary or Mr. Robinson to deliver letters to them. The female officer became increasingly agitated each time I reminded her that we would be happy to drop the papers off to Baker’s secretary or Mr. Robinson. The lead officer would not allow us to enter. I reminded him that it was a public building, but he said we had to leave. I asked him for his name. He identified himself as Officer Willingham. I asked the entry guard for her name again and she finally said, in a very reluctant tone, “Officer Lester”. Because she spoke so softly I asked for it again. She didn’t answer. I asked again, but she wouldn’t answer.
It should be noted that, during our visit, we observed two other people who entered the building and were allowed access. They were not asked for ID or if they had an appointment, however, one person in our group recalls them having badges.
We alighted the building to find two other officers arriving on the scene. We met up with other people who attended the rally as we walked to the next door building in order to continue delivering letters to State legislators.
We entered the Coverdell building and joined Dawn Forbes, founder of Golden Isles Tea Party, who was identifying building and room numbers for letter delivery with the aid of a guard. Much to our surprise, the same officers that surrounded us earlier entered the building and surrounded much of our group. One of the officers told another guard at the front desk, to call him if we gave them any problems.
We did not give anyone any problems before or after the seven police officers were called to remove us from a building that we pay for with our tax dollars, with the simple intent to deliver a couple of pieces of paper.
We didn’t yell at anyone, we weren’t threatening in anyway, we didn’t shout, we didn’t name call, we didn’t throw anything, we didn’t use abusive language, we didn’t touch anyone, yet we were determined to deliver our letters. We were simply trying to exercise our civil liberties and we were denied.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Nullification: The Great Decentralizer
Nullification: The Great Decentralizer
By Jason Spencer (Camden County Tea Party)
With the passage of monstrous pieces of legislation in 2009, big government is on a frantic pace to destroy the last vestiges of the Constitution that secure our liberties. Specifically, the health care bills that passed in each chamber of Congress, which are now in conference, has the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance…or else. If one does not purchase what they tell an individual to buy, the government may fine, prosecute and even make that individual see the inside of a jail. In addition, the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Representatives requires homeowners to retrofit their humble abodes with new energy efficient construction codes. If the cap-and-trade bill becomes law, homeowners failing to retrofit their homes with these new “green” federal requirements will be denied resale.
The aforementioned examples are just a few of many unrelenting assaults upon the liberties of American sovereigns. Once upon a time, American sovereigns and their respective States made sure that Congress operated within its seventeen enumerated powers that were delegated to them. Presently, abiding by these constitutional constraints is seen as trivial, insignificant, and inconvenient by today’s Congress. American sovereigns and their respective State legislatures, with stunning insouciance, have allowed this power grab to transpire over many years. Now, we may have “crossed the Rubicon” in terms of recovering what liberties we have ceded to the federal government. Are we now just merely lowly subjects who are at the mercy of an all powerful centralized State graveling for the crumbs of freedom it now desperately craves?
We must become sovereigns again, but how do we do that when the federal government’s powers are no longer bound by the original seventeen enumerated powers granted under the Constitution? Instead, the federal government’s powers have expanded beyond the original enumerated powers with over 4000 federal criminal laws and over 40,000 pages of a perverted and incomprehensible tax code. How do we, as individual sovereigns, empower our States to reclaim the great residuum of power from the federal leviathan in order to serve our interest and be the protectorate of liberty? The answer to these questions is the idea of nullification.
Nullification or “to nullify” is a topic that nowadays is considered archaic, a historical novelty and is even considered taboo in polite political conversation amongst academic historians, jurist and the political mainstream. This word is much akin to its close cousins “secession”, “devolution”, “interposition”, “States Rights”, “delegated powers” and in some cases “Constitution”. However, an interest in nullification is gaining momentum among state legislatures with the advent of multiple state sovereignty resolutions being enacted to slap the proverbial and overreaching hand of the federal government.
So, what is nullification? Nullification is the legal theory by which states can declare federal laws unconstitutional. The United States was founded on the ideals that federal power could be challenged by the states. 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. Nullification is also a fundamental state right to prevent federal domination: A domination that is all too commonplace today.
Nullification is an important means for the several states to defend themselves against an all powerful central government just as the original thirteen colonies achieved at the nascency of the Republic. The individual thirteen British colonies that eventually became individual states were always separate political entities. American victory established the precedent and left no doubt upon where sovereignty resided. Individual state sovereignty was at the heart of the Anglo-American argument that led to the American Revolution, and for that matter, it was the prime issue that led to the subsequent War Between the States. At present, state obstruction of intrusive federal laws through meaningful nullification must now be considered as a rightful remedy and a necessary tool against the centralized state. Among other rightful remedies to thwart wrongful infringements afforded to the sovereign states are interposition and even secession. Specifically, interposition is where a state may use force to prevent the execution of federal laws it deems a violation of the Constitution; and a state may claim the right of secession, which is a peaceful withdrawal from “the political bands which have connected them…” to a tyrannical central authority. However, throughout human history most secession attempts have not ended peacefully—but in the 1990s, the Soviet Union did not forcibly prevent breakaway republics from leaving during its collapse. As a result of the central authority’s impotence, those republics were allowed to leave peacefully.
Andrew Jackson once argued that nullification is “incompatible with the existence of the Union”, but nullification is entirely compatible because it underscores the very foundation of the Union: The doctrine of delegated authority and the separation of powers. Thus, the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution, along with Article VI (the Supremacy Clause) prohibit federal usurpation or the wrongful infringement upon the reserved authority of the States or “We the People”. Furthermore, some would even say that secession is not legal since the War Between the States settled that issue. On the contrary, states have a right to resist and even call for a political divorce “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive” for which it may then “institute new Government.” Laws enacted by the federal government that reach beyond the scope of its delegated authority under the Constitution are illegitimate. Thus, without the possibility of state secession or nullification, what does the federal government have working against its power? Some would answer this question by employing the use of the courts.
Unfortunately, the courts have become politicized and are as impartial and not objective arbiters for the cause of liberty as secured by the Constitution. The role of the federal courts as the final arbiter of disputed constitutional issues is probably the weakest aspect of the Constitution. Over the years, there have been issues presented to the courts to answer constitutional questions where violations may have occurred and how the Constitution applies. Conversely, the courts have been involved in issues where the Constitution does not apply. When the courts involve themselves in non-constitutional issues, it politicizes the halls of justice. By doing so, our liberties fade, and passing political litmus tests becomes the objective of the court—not whether the courts understand the Constitution. This weakness in our federal courts allows Congress to pass numerous laws over the past 100 years giving the federal government additional authority not mentioned in the Constitution. But, without amendment, altering the enumerated powers by legislative fiat is, in and of itself, unconstitutional.
Presently, there are many numerous nullification efforts currently underway in several states. A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws—in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void. Similarly, as in Montana and Tennessee, New Hampshire seeks to “exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law regulation” with House Bill 1285. Furthermore, in an effort to interpose for its citizens, New Hampshire will implement felony charges against federal agents for violations of their citizen’s rights.
Finally, Americans have started to wake up to the intrusive omnipotent central government and have begun to resist. Thus, nullification proves to be an efficacious legal method as a great ‘decentralizer’ by binding government with the chains of the Constitution.
By Jason Spencer (Camden County Tea Party)
With the passage of monstrous pieces of legislation in 2009, big government is on a frantic pace to destroy the last vestiges of the Constitution that secure our liberties. Specifically, the health care bills that passed in each chamber of Congress, which are now in conference, has the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance…or else. If one does not purchase what they tell an individual to buy, the government may fine, prosecute and even make that individual see the inside of a jail. In addition, the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Representatives requires homeowners to retrofit their humble abodes with new energy efficient construction codes. If the cap-and-trade bill becomes law, homeowners failing to retrofit their homes with these new “green” federal requirements will be denied resale.
The aforementioned examples are just a few of many unrelenting assaults upon the liberties of American sovereigns. Once upon a time, American sovereigns and their respective States made sure that Congress operated within its seventeen enumerated powers that were delegated to them. Presently, abiding by these constitutional constraints is seen as trivial, insignificant, and inconvenient by today’s Congress. American sovereigns and their respective State legislatures, with stunning insouciance, have allowed this power grab to transpire over many years. Now, we may have “crossed the Rubicon” in terms of recovering what liberties we have ceded to the federal government. Are we now just merely lowly subjects who are at the mercy of an all powerful centralized State graveling for the crumbs of freedom it now desperately craves?
We must become sovereigns again, but how do we do that when the federal government’s powers are no longer bound by the original seventeen enumerated powers granted under the Constitution? Instead, the federal government’s powers have expanded beyond the original enumerated powers with over 4000 federal criminal laws and over 40,000 pages of a perverted and incomprehensible tax code. How do we, as individual sovereigns, empower our States to reclaim the great residuum of power from the federal leviathan in order to serve our interest and be the protectorate of liberty? The answer to these questions is the idea of nullification.
Nullification or “to nullify” is a topic that nowadays is considered archaic, a historical novelty and is even considered taboo in polite political conversation amongst academic historians, jurist and the political mainstream. This word is much akin to its close cousins “secession”, “devolution”, “interposition”, “States Rights”, “delegated powers” and in some cases “Constitution”. However, an interest in nullification is gaining momentum among state legislatures with the advent of multiple state sovereignty resolutions being enacted to slap the proverbial and overreaching hand of the federal government.
So, what is nullification? Nullification is the legal theory by which states can declare federal laws unconstitutional. The United States was founded on the ideals that federal power could be challenged by the states. 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. Nullification is also a fundamental state right to prevent federal domination: A domination that is all too commonplace today.
Nullification is an important means for the several states to defend themselves against an all powerful central government just as the original thirteen colonies achieved at the nascency of the Republic. The individual thirteen British colonies that eventually became individual states were always separate political entities. American victory established the precedent and left no doubt upon where sovereignty resided. Individual state sovereignty was at the heart of the Anglo-American argument that led to the American Revolution, and for that matter, it was the prime issue that led to the subsequent War Between the States. At present, state obstruction of intrusive federal laws through meaningful nullification must now be considered as a rightful remedy and a necessary tool against the centralized state. Among other rightful remedies to thwart wrongful infringements afforded to the sovereign states are interposition and even secession. Specifically, interposition is where a state may use force to prevent the execution of federal laws it deems a violation of the Constitution; and a state may claim the right of secession, which is a peaceful withdrawal from “the political bands which have connected them…” to a tyrannical central authority. However, throughout human history most secession attempts have not ended peacefully—but in the 1990s, the Soviet Union did not forcibly prevent breakaway republics from leaving during its collapse. As a result of the central authority’s impotence, those republics were allowed to leave peacefully.
Andrew Jackson once argued that nullification is “incompatible with the existence of the Union”, but nullification is entirely compatible because it underscores the very foundation of the Union: The doctrine of delegated authority and the separation of powers. Thus, the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution, along with Article VI (the Supremacy Clause) prohibit federal usurpation or the wrongful infringement upon the reserved authority of the States or “We the People”. Furthermore, some would even say that secession is not legal since the War Between the States settled that issue. On the contrary, states have a right to resist and even call for a political divorce “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive” for which it may then “institute new Government.” Laws enacted by the federal government that reach beyond the scope of its delegated authority under the Constitution are illegitimate. Thus, without the possibility of state secession or nullification, what does the federal government have working against its power? Some would answer this question by employing the use of the courts.
Unfortunately, the courts have become politicized and are as impartial and not objective arbiters for the cause of liberty as secured by the Constitution. The role of the federal courts as the final arbiter of disputed constitutional issues is probably the weakest aspect of the Constitution. Over the years, there have been issues presented to the courts to answer constitutional questions where violations may have occurred and how the Constitution applies. Conversely, the courts have been involved in issues where the Constitution does not apply. When the courts involve themselves in non-constitutional issues, it politicizes the halls of justice. By doing so, our liberties fade, and passing political litmus tests becomes the objective of the court—not whether the courts understand the Constitution. This weakness in our federal courts allows Congress to pass numerous laws over the past 100 years giving the federal government additional authority not mentioned in the Constitution. But, without amendment, altering the enumerated powers by legislative fiat is, in and of itself, unconstitutional.
Presently, there are many numerous nullification efforts currently underway in several states. A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws—in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void. Similarly, as in Montana and Tennessee, New Hampshire seeks to “exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law regulation” with House Bill 1285. Furthermore, in an effort to interpose for its citizens, New Hampshire will implement felony charges against federal agents for violations of their citizen’s rights.
Finally, Americans have started to wake up to the intrusive omnipotent central government and have begun to resist. Thus, nullification proves to be an efficacious legal method as a great ‘decentralizer’ by binding government with the chains of the Constitution.
Welcome Back Rally Ad
This video was put together by a talented Patriot in North GA, Craig Brannon. Thanks, again, Craig!
Friday, January 8, 2010
Guest column: Will 2010 become the year of the Tea Party?
From Desmoinesregister.com
As we enter the New Year, one of the most interesting questions is whether the Tea Party movement was a temporary outburst of anger or the beginning of a fundamental reform movement that may change America.
Recent polls indicating that a "Tea Party Party" would be more popular than the Republican Party are a signal of the depth of potential support for a truly radical movement of government reform.
Many Americans feel threatened by the radicalism of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine. There is a much deeper anger in America than the media elites or the Democrats in Congress and the White House understand.
Read the rest: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100101/OPINION01/1010332/-1/ENT05/Guest-column-Will-2010-become-the-year-of-the-Tea-Party
As we enter the New Year, one of the most interesting questions is whether the Tea Party movement was a temporary outburst of anger or the beginning of a fundamental reform movement that may change America.
Recent polls indicating that a "Tea Party Party" would be more popular than the Republican Party are a signal of the depth of potential support for a truly radical movement of government reform.
Many Americans feel threatened by the radicalism of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine. There is a much deeper anger in America than the media elites or the Democrats in Congress and the White House understand.
Read the rest: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100101/OPINION01/1010332/-1/ENT05/Guest-column-Will-2010-become-the-year-of-the-Tea-Party
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Thermopylae for Health Care - from American Spectator
Thermopylae for Health Care
By Quin Hillyer on 1.7.10 @ 6:09AM
Conservatives want Thermopylae. Congressional Republican leaders instead imitate the Confederate defense of Atlanta -- the one that led a local editor to write that General Joseph E. Johnston's reputation had "grown with every backward step."
Thermopylae, of course, was where the famed "300" Spartans (and about 1,200 others) fought off many tens of thousands of Persians for three full days, with their courageous sacrifice helping the Greeks eventually win the war. The defense of Northwest Georgia, on the other hand, showed that Johnston was adept at putting up a united front, seizing excellent defensive positions in well-drilled fashion -- and then retreating time after time in perfect order, saving his army for a "later" that never came while inflicting only glancing damage on his enemy as the Yankees gobbled up territory like a horde of Pac-Men… until Atlanta and eventually the whole of Georgia fell to the onslaught.
For entire article, see http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/07/thermopylae-for-health-care
By Quin Hillyer on 1.7.10 @ 6:09AM
Conservatives want Thermopylae. Congressional Republican leaders instead imitate the Confederate defense of Atlanta -- the one that led a local editor to write that General Joseph E. Johnston's reputation had "grown with every backward step."
Thermopylae, of course, was where the famed "300" Spartans (and about 1,200 others) fought off many tens of thousands of Persians for three full days, with their courageous sacrifice helping the Greeks eventually win the war. The defense of Northwest Georgia, on the other hand, showed that Johnston was adept at putting up a united front, seizing excellent defensive positions in well-drilled fashion -- and then retreating time after time in perfect order, saving his army for a "later" that never came while inflicting only glancing damage on his enemy as the Yankees gobbled up territory like a horde of Pac-Men… until Atlanta and eventually the whole of Georgia fell to the onslaught.
For entire article, see http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/07/thermopylae-for-health-care
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Attorney General Baker
We need to encourage our Attorney General to join the other 13 states who are fighting the health care bill at the state levels. Below you will find one of our Patriot's letter to Attorney General Baker. I hope it inspires you to write your own. You may reach the Attorney General at 404-656-3300, fax 657-8733, or e-mail agbaker@law.ga.gov.
Attorney General Baker:
You were quoted sometime last year that you have not "made up your mind" about the constitutionality of the recent health care legislation passed in both chambers of the US Congress. Well, I can assure you that this federal mandate is unconstitutional and mandating that people buy health insurance in not one of the seventeen enumerated powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution by the sovereign citizens of this state.
I am asking you to invoke the 10th Amendment rights of the citizens of Georgia and interpose on our behalf. I am also asking you nullify or support the enforcement of nullification legislation passed by the GA General Assembly against any federal mandate that would require Georgia's citizens to purchase health insurance. If you have not "made up your mind" with regards to upholding your oath of office, maybe you should continue reading about how nullification works and its history in this country.
When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law or regulation, it is passing legally-binding legislation that makes the federal act in question 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.
Current nullification efforts around the U.S. have states passing laws that effectively defy federal laws and regulations on firearms, marijuana, identification cards and more. In 2010, we expect to see similar legislation in response to Health Care, No Child Left Behind, Federalization of the Guard and more.
The most asked question is – once such a law is passed, what next?
STANDING BETWEEN
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:
"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them".
Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.
It is on these principles that New Hampshire State Representatives Itse, Ingbretson, Domain, Comerford, and Villeneuve have raised the bar for the 10th Amendment Movement with their introduction of House Bill 1648 (h/t Chris Lawless)
"Any act, order, law, statute, regulation or rule restricting the ability of New Hampshire citizens to contract with health care professionals or facilities for the provision health care services or to contract with corporations providing health insurance authorized by the State of New Hampshire for health insurance is unconstitutional, void and of no force. Any attempt to enforce such a law is an affront to the Sovereignty of the States and their Citizens."
PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL AGENTS
Not only does the bill make restrictions of health care choices unconstitutional, it expressly prohibits interference in these choices by federal agents and requires state agencies to interpose as a protection. From the text of the legislation:
Any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or employee of any corporation providing services to the United States who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, or withholds medical services from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire or withholds medicines or medical treatment from a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire based upon a law, statute, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Any officer, agent, or employee of the United States or employee of any corporation providing services to the United States who prevents, attempts to prevent, interferes with, voids or penalties for a contract between a legal resident or inhabitant of New Hampshire and a health insurance provider authorized to business in New Hampshire based upon a law, regulation or rule of the United States without the consent of the General Court of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
WEED: A LESSON FOR RESISTANCE
While many people are calling on State AG’s to sue the federal government over the Constitutionality of national health care, many others take the position that going to federal courts in the hope that they’ll limit the power of the federal government is likely a lost cause.
But for those that pursue such court action, the real question remains – If the “Supremes” rule against the Constitution as they have so many times before, will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?
The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus – federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.
With legislation giving support to their cause by requiring state interposition in their defense, will health freedom activists have the same courage? Only time will tell.
Mr. Baker, I implore you to uphold your oath to the Constitution in a time where so many in government has forgotten to do. Please don't be an usurper of the sovereign citizens you serve.
Sincerely
Jason C. Spencer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
