...Or is that 103 or 104?

For those who are anti-constitutionalists, anti-10th amendment, anti-states' righters, etc.: you might as well quit reading now, because what I'm about to tell you is going to make you mad, and will probably result in you engaging in ad hominems in the comment section, even though you don't know me.

In 1789, as something of a "gentleman's agreement" which resulted in some hesitant states ratifying the U.S. Constitution, James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights (aka the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) in the first Congress. You see, the original Constitution was viewed as having too much potential for abuse, and while some suggested that there was no need for a Bill of Rights (because, after all, everyone understood that our rights were part of our human nature and listing them was not necessary), Thomas Jefferson and others believed that it was an important add-on to the Constitutional order.

The Tenth Amendment is the one which this post is discussing: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.

About 33 years ago, I participated in my very first speech competition (while a sophomore in high school). The competition was sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and involved a prepared speech, and then a 3-5 minute pseudo-extemporaneous speech (the topic was drawn from a list of several which we had been given beforehand, so it had been possible to do some research in advance). The topic I drew? The Tenth Amendment. I finished the competition--my first ever--in 2nd place.

All that just goes to suggest that--though I'm a (nearly) life-long Nebraska (not a state that's been known for its love of "states' rights")--I have a bit of an affinity for that amendment (well actually ALL of the first 10 amendments) to the Constitution. I think it was absolutely brilliant--and somewhat prescient--of Jefferson and the boys to demand that it be immediately included, while everyone thought that it was redundant and unnecessary.

I have come to believe that, while we ought to support candidates at the national level (presidential and congressional) who are pro-liberty, the institutions of our federal government are so corrupted that most of our efforts will be like "spitting into the wind". Hence, we need to return to the 10th Amendment (and it's lower numbered brethren).

Angela made note of the fact that Tom Woods has a new book coming out on nullification. Woods is likely to be excoriated in the press over this. Anyone who dares to assert the STATES' rights in the union is automatically cast as a racist. Indeed, here in Nebraska, a recent effort (which ultimately succeeded) aimed at a legislative resolution calling upon Congress to acknowledge the 10th Amendment was met by our few truly liberal legislators as something akin to calling for a return to slavery. One legislator, in a patronizing way, suggested how unfortunate it was that there were people willing to cast their lots with a cause that had such a "tarnished" past.

But a true "states' rights" movement may be the last thing standing between the people and ever increasing tyranny of the federal government. And if that's the case, we need to be building that case at the STATE level; we need to convince our STATE officials that they truly DO have a role to play, beyond simply being the administrators of federal programs and the distributors of federal funds; we need to convince them that THEY are accountable to US, and that we expect them to take a stand against the intrusions of the federal government--not only the individual intrusions on our rights, but the never-ending erosion of the role of the states.

Remember, the "United States"--a country of STATES bound together in a union. Do we think that the individuals who fought the War for Independence believed that they were fighting to voluntarily consign themselves to slavery and subservience? Do we really believe that the STATES that came together through their representatives in 1787 for the purpose of "tweaking" the Articles of Confederation really envisioned becoming the slaves to a federal master?

I believe that it almost certain that the answer is no on both counts--and indeed, the ratification of the Bill of Rights seems to suggest that very notion. The Bill of Rights was meant as a LIMIT on federal power, and a reassertion that the states and the individual citizens of the United States were sovereign, and that there were defined limits on the power of the federal government.

”The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.” “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/20644955/Notice-of-Declaration-of-Independence-and-Establishment-of-Individual-Sovereignty )



Here in Nebraska, as we were just getting the "sovereignty resolution" passed in the state, Triple Hash dropped me an e-mail. He said (I paraphrase): "What about 10/10/10 for the Tenth?" In other words, he made note of the confluence of the Tenth Amendment movement, and the fact that THIS October 10th would be noted as 10/10/10. That, of course, was too perfect to ignore. The NEC4L purchased some likely domain names, and then I started talking with one of my "partners in crime" at Grassroots in Nebraska, and we started on a trip that I'm not really sure we could stop at this point. The essence of it all: on this October 10th, we will be having an pro-10th Amendment rally on our Capitol steps. NOT a Tea Party, but a rally for an affirmation of state sovereignty. This will be just 3 weeks before the General Election. To that end, our intention is to invite candidates--both Republican and Democrat--for state offices (legislature an constitutional officers) to come and sign a pledge stating that they will protect the citizens of Nebraska from encroachments by the federal government. We'll invite candidates who are members of the House, as well, but their role in this is minimal--other than recognizing that the states are actually players in the whole scheme--and that just because they pass a law, doesn't mean that it's constitutional. The timing is perfect: the signing of the pledge will win candidates "good guy points"; the refusal to sign will win them "bad guy points." We will be happy to publicize which side they're on in the weeks prior to the election. Take a stand with us! Start an effort in YOUR state (or encourage organizations that might do so); contact us (there is a contact us link on the home page); we'll help you get things rolling, put your events on the calendar, etc. You can join our Facebook page; follow us on Twitter; or subscribe to updates (along the sidebar of the home page). We want to partner with other states however we can--but we're going to focus on our efforts in Nebraska, so it's up to others to look at what they're going to do in their states. And, if you want to help us pay for hosting, and build up a little reserve for that big ad campaign in the fall, feel free to send a little money our way. Maybe even $10 (or 102 or 103). LLE

There are organizations out there--like the Tenth Amendment Center --that are doing admirable work in building the case for a return to a more primary role of the states in the Union. And of course there are assorted grassroots groups--like the Campaign for Liberty and others--who are encouraging that as well.