Blog

Why is the Left silent…

When George W. Bush was still president, I attended anti-war/anti-Bush rallies in protest of him and his polices.  A few years later, I did attend Tea Party rallies in protest of President Obama and much of his agenda.

For my efforts, Neo-Cons accused me of unpatriotic while Progressives have called me a racist.  Over the years, I have been called many things.  (And arguably, some of which may even be true!) However, I can assure you that I’m not an unpatriotic racist.

The problem is that the partisanship has expanded to extremes.  This isn’t just a phenomenon in Washington DC, but in the whole country:  Left vs. Right, Democrats vs. Republicans, Blue State vs. Red State, Tea Party vs. Occupy.

The media and many people have commented about how the right has moved away from the center.  In many ways, I agree with this assessment.  However one problem, those making this observation fail to see that left has moved from the center as well.

If I were to travel in a time machine and bring back a Republican and Democrat from the late 50s or early 60s, they would be very different from their modern counterparts. Both parties have complained about the party in power as the said party has expanded the role of the Federal Government while pushing their agendas.

Again supporters of either party fail to recognized,  they just gave their opponents the tools to expand a agenda that they will surely oppose.  Prior to Obama winning the Democratic Nomination, I had an argument with a Neo-Con.  He was an avid supporter of the Patriot Act.  I expressed my concerns and he reassured me that Bush would never abuse the trust of the American People.

I hit him with the following question:  Can you give me the same assurance when Hillary Clinton becomes President?  Note- This was at a time when Hillary still appeared to be the heir apparent for the Democratic Nomination, and you should have seen the Neo-Con’s eyes when I asked it.

There have been too many times when the party in power has ignored the Constitution while pursuing their agendas.  This is more than just a casual disagreement on the interpretation of the Constitution, but an outright rejection of it.

Recently, I reacted to some of my left leaning friends in a forum that is dominated by those of that point of view.  They were being critical of the Republican complaints of President Obama and his recent recess appointments.

Here are some of things I pointed out:

The issue isn’t about who did the most recess appointments between Bush and Obama.  The question is WHEN!  How can one make the case for a recess appointment when the Senate isn’t in recess?  This is clearly Unconstitutional.

However, there are clearly to those on the left that being Unconstitutional isn’t really that important for them when you consider the actions of the sitting president.

Later, I posed the following questions to them:

Why is the left silent when President Obama extended the Patriot Act (A gift from the Bush Administration) when Obama campaigned against it?  An law that “in theory” the left doesn’t support.

Why is the left silent about the fact that Guantanamo Bay prison is still open when the President promised he would close it down?  (Note-For its role only to be expanded, more on that later.)

Why is the left silent about how President Obama has expanded much of Bush’s wars in the Middle East?  Drone Attacks in Pakistan?  Drone Attacks in Yemen?  Drone Attacks in Libya?  (Before bringing up the withdrawal in Iraq, how many private contractors are still going to remain there on the government’s payroll??)

Why is the left silent about President Obama’s continue use of Bush type signing statements when he signs bills into law?  Something that Obama was critical about Bush during the 2008 election?

Why is the left silent about the NDAA that BOTH parties totally supported as the President signed into law?  (Note-A Democratic Senator stated that is was the White House that insisted on having the most offensive amendments of this law added.) (Note 2- This law could expand the role of Guantanamo Bay which again, something that President Obama campaigned against.)

Why is the left silent as the SOPA law is pushing its way through Congress and all indications are that the President will sign it?

Why is the left silent as the President starts a war with Libya which lead to the death of their leader without even consulting Congress?  Where are those some left leaning individuals that I protested with during the Bush years?  If those individuals are honest, they will have to concede that if Bush tried these things, there would be rioting in the streets!

Why is the left silent that it refuses to run another candidate against the President which according to left ideology who shouldn’t  support these things?

Why is the left silent?  Is it about principle or power?

I finished with the following observation:

The harsh reality is:  It is because it is YOUR GUY in the White House and not one of those who have the infamous (R) beside their name.  When these issues arise, we don’t hear your voices, but the solitary sounds of cricket’s chirping.

I will concede that Republicans are due much criticism.  However, I would strongly suggest those on the left need to look upon their reflection in a window before throwing rocks.

Yes, Bush ignored the Constitution, but so has Obama.  By doing so, he has continued the trend of making our Liberties to disappear.  However, I guess that is okay, since he is YOUR GUY!

Again, is this about principle or power?

Jan 08, 2012 | Categories:Constitution | 2 Comments »

National Debt Relief Amendment Brief

TAC Texas Brief- The National Debt Relief Amendment

Author: Dr. Daniel R. Coleman, D.B.A., Communications Coordinator, Tenth Amendment Center-Texas

Contributing Author: Steve Baysinger, Chair, Tenth Amendment Center-Texas

Background:

The United States (US) federal debt has increased every year in gross dollar amounts since 1957 (Treasury Direct, 2011). The federal debt in 1980 was 909 billion dollars, but has increased dramatically to the current 2011 level of 15.1 trillion dollars (US Debt Clock, 2011). The debt as a percentage to the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) reached a modern day low of 32% in 1981, but has increased to the current level of 103% of GDP (Chantrell, 2011). The US debt limit has been increased by the US Congress 10 times in the last ten years (Mueller, 2011). The debt limit currently stands at $15.194 trillion; however President Barack Obama has asked Congress to approve an increase to $16.394 trillion (Chadbourne, 2011).

TAC- Texas Position:

The national debt represents a threat to the safety and security of the United States. The US Congress and the Executive branch of the US government appear to be unwilling or incapable of reducing the burgeoning debt. US citizens and individual states have a patriotic responsibility to intercede when the federal government’s actions are irresponsible or detrimental to well-being of the citizenry.

Article V of the US Constitution allows for states to amend the Constitution without the approval of the US Congress. Congress is required by law to call a constitutional convention if 34 state legislatures individually pass a proposed amendment.  In order to become part of the US Constitution, the proposed amendment would require ratification by both houses of 38 state legislatures (US Constitution Online, 2011)(McKinnon & Lessig, 2011). “A campaign for a state led Amendment process under Article V of the U.S. Constitution is underway. North Dakota and Louisiana have passed the NDRA, 12 states will be introducing the Amendment for consideration in their next sessions, and active discussions are underway with state legislators in an additional 12 states,” (Restoring Freedom, 2011).

The Tenth Amendment Center- Texas advocates a resolution by the Texas State Legislatures proposing the adoption of the National Debt Relief Amendment, which reads:

“An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states,” (Restoring Freedom, 2011).

 References:

 Chadbourne, M. (2011, December 27). Obama to ask for debt limit hike: Treasury official. Reuters. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ask-debt-limit-hike-treasury-official-152416457.html

Chantrell, C. (2011). US federal debt numbers. US Government Spending. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

McKinnon, M. & Lessig, L. (2010, April 21). How to sober up Washington. Harvard Law School. Retrieved from: http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/04/12_lessig.html

Restoring Freedom (2011). National Debt Relief Amendment. Retrieved from http://www.restoringfreedom.org/

Treasury Direct. (2011). Historical debt outstanding. US Treasury Direct. Retrieved from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

US Constitution Online, (2011) US Constitution – Article V.  Retrieved from http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html

US Debt Clock (2011). US national debt. Retrieved on December 30, 2011 from http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Concurrent Texas House-Senate Resolution

Applying for an Article V Amendments Convention

Whereas, Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides authority for a Convention to be called by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution upon application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several states (“amendments convention”), and,

Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Texas favors the proposal and ratification of an amendment to said Constitution which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate States.

Therefore, be it resolved:

  • Section 1. That, as provided for in Article V of the Constitution of the United States, the Legislature of the State of Texas herewith respectfully applies for an amendments convention to be called for the purpose of proposing an amendment which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate States.
  • Section 2. That the amendments convention contemplated by this application shall be entirely focused upon and exclusively limited to the subject matter of proposing for ratification an amendment to the Constitution providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate States.
  • Section 3. This application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states have made application for an equivalently limited amendments convention.
  • Section 4. Be it further resolved that a certified copy of this application be dispatched by the secretary of state (or other responsible constitutional officer), to the President of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, to each member of the applicant’s delegation to the United States Congress, and to the presiding officers of each house of the several state legislatures, requesting their cooperation in applying for the amendments convention limited to the subject matter contemplated by this application.

Jan 08, 2012 | Categories:Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Transportation Security Agency Brief

TAC Texas Brief- Transportation Security Administration    

Author: Dr. Daniel R. Coleman, D.B.A., Communications Coordinator, Tenth Amendment Center-Texas

Contributing Author: Steve Baysinger, Chair, Tenth Amendment Center-Texas

Background:

Prior to March, 2003, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was a division of the Department of Transportation (DOT).  Today, the TSA is part of the Department of Homeland Security whose mission is to protect “the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce,” (TSA 2011).

According to a study by William and Mary University (Atkinson, Boardman, Walters, 2009):

  • Prior to the TSA’s assuming the responsibility for security at the nation’s airports, it was the responsibility of each individual airport, and the airlines providing service to the public, to provide transportation security.
  • Prior to the September 11, 2001, assault on America there were approximately 28,000 screeners in U.S. airports, with an estimated annual security cost of $1 billion to the US airline industry.
  • In 2002, the TSA was initially composed of a small group of employees with expenses totaling $95 million. As of 2009, the TSA had more than 50,000 employees and expenses of $4.733 billion!

Approximately 50,000 Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) work at 450 airports nationwide. The TSOs screen nearly 2 million passengers a day,” (TSA, 2011). According to John Pistole, Director of TSA (as of November 2010) there are 385 AIT scanners in 70 airports across the country, but “he expects to expand that number to one thousand by the end of 2011,” (as cited by CNN, 2011). Further, TSA declares “Anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties,” (as cited by CNN).

Analysis:

 The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides 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 Warrants shall not be issued, 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. “In the United States criminal court system, probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed,” (Probable Cause, 2011).

The TSA’s apparent impunity from Fourth Amendment lawsuits is derived from the 1973, 9th Circuit Court ruling (U.S. vs. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908).  The key wording in this ruling included, “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft…,” an administrative search is allowed if  “ no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly,.” (Frieschling, 2010)(emphasis added).

  • TAC-Texas Position: The TSA physical searches are inherently a violation of the 4th Amendment, in addition to being unnecessarily intrusive and intensive. The 9th Circuit ruling does not supersede the rights of individuals and state/local authorities as guaranteed by the Constitution.  The TSA should assume an advisory role to assist State and local entities.
  • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995:

The Act is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. “The TSA concluded the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (did) not apply when rulemaking actions are taken without the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, the TSA (did) not prepare a statement under the Act,” (Federal Register).

On Aug. 5, 2011, Congress passed an extension of the FAA authorization to collect:

  • The 7.5 percent tax on the base ticket price.
  • The domestic segment tax of $3.70 per person per segment (a single takeoff and single landing).
  • The international travel facilities tax of $16.30 per person for flights that begin or end in the U.S., or $8.20 per person for a flight that begins or ends in Alaska or Hawaii.
  • The 6.25 percent tax on the amount paid for transporting property by air. (IRS, 2011).

Last year, airlines and passengers contributed $2 billion in taxes and fees to the TSA. The federal government — in other words, taxpayers — picked up the rest of the organization’s $8 billion tab (CNN Money, 2011). This amount does not include the economic cost of wait times forced upon travelers.

  • TAC-Texas Position: Mandated licenses and clearances for private individuals and companies, as well as screening activities have economic costs well in excess of $100 million dollars required for TSA’s Federal Register disclosure. The activities of the TSA, without proper disclosure, have created substantial costs on the airline industry, citizens, residents and visitors to the United States, in violation of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995; and therefore should be discontinued. 
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Presidential Executive Order 13132:

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states: “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.” The TSA has analyzed its policy under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. “We (TSA) determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we have determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications,” (Federal Register, 2001).

  • TAC-Texas Position: Airports are located within the jurisdiction of State and local governments and no enumerated power in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate them. The actions by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (e.g. physical searching, seizing of personal possession, and/or detainment) at airports or other transportation venues without probable cause that a weapon or explosive will be brought aboard by an individual are a violation of the federalism principle. Except in times of national emergency, (like every other government agency), the TSA is subject to the Constitution of these United States. As a national emergency has not been declared, the TSA is in violation of the Tenth Amendment, as well as is culpable in failing to publicly disclose its impact on Federalism in the Federal Register; and therefore should cease and desist from further unlawful activities.

Action Points:

The following recommendations are made to restore the integrity of the states and the bounds of the Constitution:

  • Reestablish: Unabated and untaxed travel within the boundaries of an individual state or between states is a right of every American citizen, legal resident and authorized visitor.
  • Reestablish: Free travel can only be interrupted if there is a reasonable suspicion or evidence that a crime has been, is being, or likely to be committed. The Fourth Amendment places the burden of proof on government officials to prove probable cause, and/or obtain warrants.
  • Reestablish: Choosing to purchase an airline ticket from a business is a private choice. Choosing to fly on an airplane does not constitute probable cause that a crime will be committed. Therefore physical searches of travelers and their personal effects by federal agents are a violation of the search and seizure laws in the absence of probable cause.
  • Reestablish: Airport security is the responsibility of the individual states and localities to enforce, as provided in the Tenth Amendment.
  • Reestablish: Travel within the State is not in the purview or authority of the federal government or its agencies.

 

References:

Atkinson, J., Boardman, J. Walters, S. (2009 December). Analyzing the Transportation Security Administration’s September 11th security fee. Retrieved from http://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/documents/prs/dhs1.pdf

Cable News Network. (2010, November 17).TSA chief faces lawmakers on pat-downs, body scans. CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/17/airport.security/

Dickler, J.  (2011, September 8). Post 9/11 travel: What airport security costs us. CNN Money. Retrieved from http://www.dot.gov/about.html#whatwedo

Federal Register (2001). Imposition and collection of passenger civil aviation service fees. Retrieved from http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2001/12/31/01-32254/imposition-and-collection-of-passenger-civil-aviation-security-service-fees#p-38

Frischling, S. (2010 November 20). How the TSA legally circumvents the Fourth Amendment. Retrieved from http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/

Internal Revenue Service (2011, August 10). Retroactive reinstatement of the air transportation excise taxes: Frequently asked questions http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=242812,00.html

Laing, K. (2011, May 25). Texas lawmakers shelve bill to ban TSA pat-downs. The Hill’s Transportation. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/tsa/163343-texas-tsa-pat-down-ban-killed-after-justice-dept-warns-flights-would-be-grounded

Probable Cause (2011). Probable Cause Website. Retrieved from http://probablecause.org/

Transportation Security Administration (2011). Who we are. TSA Website. Retrieved from http://www.tsa.gov/who_we_are/workforce/index.shtm

Jan 07, 2012 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

Environmental Protection Agency Brief

TAC Brief:  Environmental Protection Agency

Author: Dr. Daniel R. Coleman, D.B.A., Communications Coordinator, Tenth Amendment Center (Texas)

Background:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can trace its origins from the 1955 Air Pollution Control Act (APCA). This bill “authorized research training and technical assistance, but left the responsibility for air pollution control to the state and local governments,” (Schnelle & Brown, 2002 p 13). The APCA was amended twice (authorizing studies), but the Clean Air Act of 1963 was the precursor to the EPA giving “enforcement authority to the federal government to abate interstate air pollution,” (Schnelle & Brown, p 13). The 1965 Air Pollution Control Act and the Air Quality Act of 1967 provided permission and then requirements respectively, for individual states to establish guidelines for air quality.

On January 1, 1970, President Nixon signed the National Environmental Protection Act which established the EPA. Becoming operational in December of 1970, the mission of the “Environmental Protection Agency” was to:

  • Establish and enforce environmental protection standards.
  • Conduct environmental research.
  • Provide assistance to others combating environmental pollution.
  • Assist the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in developing and recommending to the President new policies for environmental protection.

Originally, the role of the federal government with regard to environmental issues was informational, leaving the states principally in charge of prevention at the source. The federal government’s role and impact in the area of environmental management has increased over the years both in size and scope. The EPA is no longer an informational agency, but has assumed the role of a regulatory and enforcement agency. It brings lawsuits, issues sanctions, and seeks to compel compliance; thus impacting individuals, local communities and states in matters which have no bearing over interstate commerce. The Constitution forbids the federal government from involving itself in single individual, local or state affairs which cannot be directly related to interstate commerce[1]. Several executive orders have specifically been directed to prevent the EPA from preempting state or local decision making:

  • As provided in a 1993 Executive Order, the EPA must publicize any major rules in the Federal Register as well as providing an impact statement to the Office of Information and the Office of Management and Budget.
  • The 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was enacted to avoid imposing unfunded mandates on states, local government, tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more.  The EPA must provide: a justification for legal authority (as it applies to interstate commerce); a cost –benefit assessment, a description of macro –economic effects and a summary of the State, Local, Territorial Governments (SLTG) concerns were and how those were addressed.

 

As provided in a 1999 Executive Order, the EPA must not put forth rules which would necessitate significant compliance costs by state or local governments, unless the EPA provides the funds; Secondly, the EPA must not put forth rules which have substantial direct effects on state or local government, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government (SLTG) (unless the EPA has consulted with pertinent elected officials). EPA must adhere to the basic principle which prevents federal preemption of local or state law. Today, the EPA has a budget of 8.6 billion dollars, employs 17,369, and operates 10 regional offices within the United States (EPA, 2011). However, the impact of the EPA is much more substantial in terms of economic cost. Leaders from various industries and government have sought relief from the EPA and its detrimental and unconstitutional activities.

Action Items: :

The following recommendations are made to restore the integrity of the states and the bounds of the Constitution:

  • Reestablish the federal government and its various agencies are forbidden by the Constitution to involve themselves in issues which pertain to individuals, local communities or individual U.S. states.
  • Reestablish the primary determination and enforcement responsibility lies within purview of the individual states’ legislatures and regulatory agencies.
  • Demand the EPA cease and desist from any attempts to enforce guidelines, collect remedies, require licenses, and establish mandates which individual state authorities have not agreed upon.
  • Demand  the EPA refrain from establishing sanctions, pursuing lawsuits, or promulgating rules for individuals, companies, localities or states which are not directly determined to impact interstate commerce.
  • Require the burden of proof to be borne by the EPA when seeking action to remedy an environmental problem within the boundaries of an individual state.
  • Require any action of the EPA within the boundaries of a given state be presented for approval by the individual state regulatory agencies or the state legislative bodies.

 References:

Americas Power (2011). http://www.americaspower.org/news/epa-set-finalize-expensive-job-destroying-new-regulation

EPA’s Budget and Spending, (2011). EPA Website. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget.html

EPA’s Laws and Executive Orders (2011). Retrieved from:  http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/

Hinton, T. (2011, Aug 9). The Ag Minute: EPA Should Consider Economic Costs of Regulations for Farmers 2011House Committee on Agriculture. Retrieved from http://agriculture.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1443

National Policy Center for Public Research (2011). Citing economic costs of EPA’s cross-State air pollution rule, black conservatives rally in support of Rand Paul resolution to block it. Retrieved from http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-CSAPR_110811.html

Schnelle, K., Brown, C. (2002). Air pollution control technology handbook. CRC Press. Excerpt from http://books.google.com/books?id=2pAh8ronYWIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[1] The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states: “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.”

 

Jan 07, 2012 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

Texas Senate Candidate (SD-25) Dr. Donna Campbell on Interstate Compacts, Immigration and the EPA

Note: The Tenth Amendment Center does not endorse political candidates. The following is provided for citizen information and education only. –Tenth Amendment Center (Texas) (TAC-T)

Doctor Donna Campbell is a candidate in the April 2012 Texas GOP primary. She is seeking to unseat Texas senator Jeff Wentworth (SD 25 (Bexar (North), Comal, Guadalupe, Hays, Kendall and Travis (South)).

TAC-T: Interstate compacts shield state regulatory autonomy from federal interference (e.g., ObamaCare, EPA environmental meddling, etc.) What is your position on interstate compacts?

Campbell comments: I like interstate compacts and support them. They are a way around an overbearing central federal government. Interstate compacts are a way for the individual states to provide a united front to unconstitutional federal dictums. There is strength and unity among the several states when engaged in interstate compacts.

As a physician, I have firsthand knowledge of the precarious nature of our country’s health care system. The current health care business model simply does not work; and it won’t work until individuals are empowered, encouraged and enabled to take direct control and responsibility for their own health. Furthermore, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to completely reorganize our health system. I will support efforts, to include the formation of interstate compacts, to resist the federal government’s encroachment on our state and personal responsibilities.

To ensure the federal government understands the states intention when forming interstate compacts, I will summon all US senators and representatives from Texas to Austin so that federal legislators are fully briefed and aware of the Texas legislatures’ goals and objectives right up front.

TAC-T: There is a tremendous amount of concern and anxiety among Texas citizens concerning illegal immigration, border transgressions and violence to include the cost to legal citizens to maintain illegal immigrants.

Article One, Section Eight, of the United States Constitution tasks the federal government to defend its borders. In reality, the Texas Department of Public Safety is expending tremendous effort (at tremendous cost) to do the job the federal government is formally tasked to do.
What is your position on border security and immigration?

Campbell comments: It is the federal government’s job to protect our borders. I say “YES” to back-billing the federal government for funds expended by the state of Texas to defend itself from border transgressions and violence. The Texas-Mexican border MUST be secured! Specifically the Texas legislature must focus on stopping drug cartel border violations and halting human trafficking.

The state of Texas must ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being handed out as welfare to individuals who have immigrated to this country illegally. Subsidizing illegal immigrants, and giving them special tuition benefits, sends the wrong signal to law-abiding people who are waiting in line to immigrate to this country legally. We must protect our borders and hold the federal government’s feet to the fire until it follows through on its responsibilities.

TAC-T: In your opinion, should the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have sole jurisdiction over Texas environmental management issues, should it be shared with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) or should the TCEQ maintain sole responsibility for managing Texas environmental matters?

Campbell comments: The Environmental Protection Agency should have ZERO influence over Texas environmental management affairs; that is the function of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The Texas senate, in turn, should have TCEQ oversight responsibility. Ultimately, the citizens of Texas have oversight over the Texas senate.

I propose the members who comprise the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality be elected by the citizens of Texas OR be nominated by the Texas governor and approved by the Texas senate; NOT appointed directly by the governor without citizen or legislator participation.

Dec 28, 2011 | Categories:Sovereignty, State Sovereignty | Tags: , , | Leave A Comment »

Obama's Change: Less choice, higher prices, and fewer jobs

The link provided below is just one example of how the health-care bill is “changing” the US economy. Like all government programs- yes I said all- the inherent cost of government and the market impact must be calculated into the equation. Every government program – (yes, I said every government program)- begins by removing resources from the private market – introducing a built in “Production Deficit”. This Production Deficit represents an immediate (and substantial cost) to the economy (Coleman, 2011). The second issue to consider is the “Market Impact” or how the government program affects the market. Like the Financial Reform Bill of 2008, [which caused many small mortgage companies to fold and is squeezing small banks (Cumulative Weight 2011)], this federal health care regulation forces out small producers and the likely survivors will be large corporations. The result is, less choice, higher prices, fewer jobs and an income distribution that looks like a third world nation.
This of course is merely the economic reasoning for trying to repeal the Healthcare bill. The overriding rationale, which seems to be forgotten in the mainstream media, is that this type of federal government initiative is unconstitutional.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-mandate-kicking-insurance-agents-curb-165451856.html

Coleman, D. (2011). An improved rationale for public choice. VDM Publishing House: Germany.

Cumulative Weight of New Regulations Rests Heavily
On Community Banks and their Communities (2011, July). NA. Retrieved from
http://aba.com/aba/documents/DFA/DFA_CBBurden_072111.pdf

Dec 18, 2011 | Categories:Constitution, federalism, personal sovereignty | Leave A Comment »

US House of Representatives (Dist. 25-Texas) Candidate Wes Riddle on Interstate Compacts, Immigration and the EPA

Note: the Tenth Amendment Center does not endorse political candidates. The following is provided for citizen information and education only. –Tenth Amendment Center (Texas).

1. Interstate Compacts (objective: shield state regulatory autonomy from federal interference, e.g., ObamaCare, EPA environmental meddling, etc.) What is the candidate’s position on interstate compacts?

Interstate Compacts represent one [of six] important strategies available to Texas, in order to effectively redress the Federal Government’s overreach into areas properly reserved to the States. The strategies should enable us to reclaim the Constitution and to halt transformation now underway from a constitutional federal Republic to that of a consolidated national democratic welfare state.

Interstate compacts are an effective way to regulate areas of mutual concern among two or more states, such as health care reform. The Supreme Court has held that congressional consent to such compacts trumps prior federal law and may even subordinate federal agencies to the agencies created by the interstate compact. Congressional consent does not necessarily require presidential signature. The Supreme Court has also suggested that congressional consent may be inferred from acquiescence. Interstate compacts thus have enormous unexplored potential as a way of shielding areas of state authority from the concentration of power in Washington, and we ought to have an interstate compact to create an alternative state-based regulation of health care (to replace ObamaCare).

The other five strategies which the State must pursue are: 1) Constitutional amendment to balance the budget; 2) opting out of federal programs and federal funds that have strings attached; 3) federal lawsuits (especially aimed at ObamaCare and the EPA to seek relief from environmental actions); 4) federal legislation (amending the Administrative Procedures Act so the Supremacy Clause shall not apply to mere regulatory action against state law, as well as modifying rules of decision for federal courts to give the Tenth Amendment precedence and presumption), and, finally; selectively applied, 5) the doctrine of nullification or state interposition described by Madison and Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves.

2. Border security and immigration (legal and illegal). There is a tremendous amount of concern and anxiety among Texas citizens concerning illegal immigration, border transgressions and violence to include the cost to legal citizens to maintain illegal immigrants in this country.

The federal government (Article One, Section 8; US Constitution) is tasked to defend the borders. In reality, the Texas DPS is expending tremendous effort (at tremendous cost) to do the job the federal government is formally tasked to do. Consequently, many have suggested Texas submit the bill for its self defense to the federal government.

What is your position on border security and immigration as well as the idea of Texas billing the federal government for services rendered?

The United States is a union comprised of equal sovereigns. Moreover, the federal government and individual states are dual sovereigns in their respective orbits, their rights and powers equally inviolable and distinct, albeit complementary. While it is true that defense of national borders is a quintessential federal responsibility, it is also true that state borders are every bit as inviolate as the nation’s, whether they are coincident or not. Long before the federal government took control of immigration issues and control of borders in this respect, states controlled their own borders and processed immigrants. They did so at Ellis Island (New York) and at Galveston Island (Texas). States, therefore, should revisit the notion that defense of borders, as well as immigration control, is a shared responsibility. Malfeasance or negligence on the part of the federal government may in fact necessitate aggressive action on the part of the states to compensate or to address emerging emergency situations. Nonetheless, Texas should definitely submit its bill for self defense to the federal government for activities reasonably attributed to it and/or claimed by the federal government for exclusive jurisdiction where it also fails to enforce its own laws or take charge of said jurisdiction. Better yet, Texas should withhold the total sum from the federal government and just call it “Payroll Deduction.”

3. EPA transgressions upon Texas state sovereignty. In your opinion, should the federal Environmental Protection Agency have: (a) sole legal jurisdiction over Texas environmental management issues, or; (b) should this responsibility lie with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or; (c) should this be a shared jurisdiction? Explain.

Federal real property in Texas amounts to less than two percent, and we are fortunate in that respect compared to the many “Western” states where the Federal Government owns much larger percentages of total land area. Since Texas owns almost all of its land and what lies beneath that land in terms of energy and mineral wealth, the EPA has very little legal jurisdiction over Texas environmental management issues. Certainly none of it can be considered as “sole” jurisdiction. The preponderance of environmental management issues in the State of Texas belong to the property owners, private sector and regulatory agencies of the State of Texas, albeit in routine communication and coordination with respective federal agencies where the jurisdiction overlaps.

Dec 12, 2011 | Categories:Sovereignty, State Sovereignty | Tags: , , | Leave A Comment »

Aborting Guns

Recently, the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act of 2011 passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives.  One thing that stood out, there were some on the left that cited the 10th Amendment as justification for it being Unconstitutional.

As much as I’m an avid gun-rights advocate, I have to admit that this criticism is valid.

Currently, forty states have some form of concealed permit reciprocity, so is the power for the Federal Government really necessary for the final ten states?

The question becomes, does the expansion of liberty by this law outweigh the growth of power in the Federal Government?  The problem is…  yes, they can pass this bill which on some level I like, but what is stopping the Federal Government using this tactic on something I don’t like?

 

A Different Take on Abortion-Part 1

 

I know abortion is a touchy issue with a lot of people.  I just ask you give me some latitude here to make my point, and I will make you a promise.  I will not endorse one side or another or even state my position on abortion.  Since it is such a divisive issue, it allows me to make a particular points.

If we are honest with ourselves, the heart of this issue comes down if you believe or not that the unborn child has natural rights or not.  Obviously, the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life crowds have different views whether life begins at conception or birth.

Personally, I can make compelling arguments for both points of view.  A Pro-Choice individual will naturally argue that a woman has the right to her own body.  Her body is her property and the state can’t claim it.  She can choose what to eat, drink, or even who shares her bed.  This isn’t the function of the state.

A Pro-Life individual will state the unborn child has rights and should be defended.  If a man beats his wife who is pregnant and she loses the child as the result, he should be punished for the loss of the child, right?  If so, we are saying as a society that the unborn child has rights on some level.  So how can an individual have partial rights?

If we are honest, we really can’t refute either argument.  We can intellectually disagree but all we can do is form some conclusion that seems morally right to us.  I do know one thing about the abortion issue.  No matter which side I come down on, there are a significant number of people in this country who will disagree with me.

 

When this topic comes in conversations, I will state my view, but I will also make a case that I do understand the arguments from the other side.  One time, a Pro-Choice friend of mine made the case that she felt the Fourteenth Amendment justified her position.  However, I pointed out to her that to a Pro-Life individual would argue that the Fourteenth Amendment would also apply to the unborn child and they are defending those same rights.  She never really considered this point of view.

I don’t demonize those who disagree with me on this issue.  My goal when the topic comes up is to share my understanding on this issue in hopes they don’t demonize individuals as well.

Since this is such a divisive issue, I believe I don’t have the authority to force my view on those who disagree with me through the power of Washington DC.

 

A Different Take on Abortion- Part 2

 

Let us pretend there are three islands close together.  The first island is settled by Catholics who want to practice their faith in peace.  There are about the same number or settlers living on the second island, but they are atheists.   Both of these islands are roughly the same size and have similar resources.

The last island is larger and is occupied by head hunting cannibals.  (I know this sounds like a Gilligan’s Island plotline, but just bear with me.)  This island has superior resources they often attack the smaller islands.

Representatives of the first two islands discuss working together to fight off the cannibals.  They form a council to discuss their issues with the cannibals. They agreed that they will trade among themselves and defend each other, but will stay out of each other’s internal affairs.

The Catholic island because of their faith have abortion illegal.  The atheists could care less about the issue and thus not illegal.

Do the atheists have the right to force the Catholics to allow abortions?  Do the Catholics have the right to force the atheists to ban abortions?  Isn’t this determination up to the people who live on these islands?

However, what if one of the following happens: a Catholic comes to the conclusion that abortions shouldn’t be banned?  Or one of the atheists starts thinking that abortions are morally wrong?

Each of these individuals have the natural rights to do one of the following:

1) They can just accept their circumstance and do nothing.

 

2) They can use their natural right of Free Speech and try to persuade those around them to their point of view.

3) They have natural right of traveling to the other community who shares their viewpoint.

 

Federal versus National

 

This concept is what our Founders had in mind with the creation of a Federal and not a National system.  The states are themselves sovereign and should control most of their internal issues.

The “conventional wisdom” has been that the Federal Government needs to maintain a check on States who may abuse their power.  Again who will maintain a check on the Federal Government?  The Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court went from 1937 to 1995 without ruling a Congressional Act as Unconstitutional.  Really????   You mean that every law during this time frame was totally Constitutional?  I sincerely doubt it.

There is no debate that States themselves will abuse power.  Well, they are government institutions after all.  However, there is a check on the states.  If a state becomes too oppressive, people and companies will leave the state and move to another one.  The State will then lose tax revenue and the quality of life will decline in the state.

Or if a State creates a bold plan for its citizens something like a state run healthcare system.  If successful, other states will study and copy the program.  If it fails, the impact is only felt by said state.

However if the Federal Government passes a bold program, the failure of the program affects everyone.  A citizen can’t avoid it by just moving to another State.

We have acknowledge the importance of competition in the marketplace for our dollars.  There are several shops or manufactures will sell you a hammer if you need one.  Why not force the states in the position to compete for your citizenship and tax dollars?

This is the check on the States and demonstrates why a lot of what Federal Government does isn’t necessary.  There is also the problem of the Federal Government abusing the states doing things that they believe are right.

Like the Republicans who supported the National Right-to-Care Reciprocity Act.

Dec 12, 2011 | Categories:Constitution, federalism, State Sovereignty | Leave A Comment »

Parable of the Monkey Master…or just say "NO!" to TYRANNY!

I ran across the following fable in a book called From Dictatorship to Democracy (A Conceptual Framework for Liberation) by Gene Sharp (Fourth U.S. Edition (May 2010), The Albert Einstein Institution).

Mr. Sharp, Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, is known for his extensive writings on nonviolent struggle, which have influenced numerous anti-government resistance movements around the world. Known as the ”Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare,” Sharp has influenced resistance organizations around the world, most recently the protest movement that toppled President Mubarak of Egypt as well as the movements in Tunisia and Libya. This fable, a fourteenth century Chinese parable by Liu-Ji, offers insight into the nature of political power.

In the feudal state of Chu an old man survived by keeping monkeys in his service. The people of Chu called him “ju gong” (monkey master).

Each morning, the old man would assemble the monkeys in his courtyard, and order the eldest one to lead the others to the mountains to gather fruits from bushes and trees. It was the rule that each monkey had to give one-tenth of his collection to the old man. Those who failed to do so would be ruthlessly flogged. All the monkeys suffered bitterly, but dared not complain.

One day, a small monkey asked the other monkeys: “Did the old man plant all the fruit trees and bushes?” The others said: “No, they grew naturally.” The small monkey further asked: “Can’t we take the fruits without the old man’s permission?” The others replied: “Yes, we all can.” The small monkey continued: “Then, why should we depend on the old man; why must we all serve him?”

Before the small monkey was able to finish his statement, all the monkeys suddenly became enlightened and awakened.

On the same night, watching that the old man had fallen asleep, the monkeys tore down all the barricades of the stockade in which they were confined, and destroyed the stockade entirely. They also took the fruits the old man had in storage, brought all with them to the woods, and never returned. The old man finally died of starvation.

Yu-li-zi says, “Some men in the world rule their people by tricks and not by righteous principles. Aren’t they just like the monkey master? They are not aware of their muddle-headedness. As soon as their people become enlightened, their tricks no longer work.”

Dec 11, 2011 | Categories:personal sovereignty, Sovereignty | Tags: , , | Leave A Comment »

New Zealand Validates Move Away from “Down Under” Economic Policy: Meanwhile, Good Intentions and the Lure of Entitlement Keep US Busy on Rearranging the Deck Chairs

The KIWIS used a recent general election to signal that budget austerity and reducing debt was the best way to reignite the economy. The National Party was able to expand from 58 to 60 seats in the parliament and provide John Key (who took office in 2008) with three more years at the helm (Davies 2011).
Of particular note was the platform of the National Party to continue the job creating policies of the past three years which included “cutting debt, curbing (government) spending, welfare reforms and returning to a budget surplus by 2014/15”, (Davies, para 4). It seems that the NZ government has realized that the best way to get out of a hole, is to stop digging.

Meanwhile, back in the States, the US political leaders are thrashing around on deck arguing about where the chairs should be placed and who gets a seat. The US federal government will likely continue arguing about which government program will fix the anemic economy right up until the next election. If President Obama secures another term, the US will be quite on course to outlast the Great Depression in terms of longevity. Citizens should be reminded that the Great Depression lasted from 1929 to circa 1941. I am confounded when I hear students say that the New Deal ended the Great Depression. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is more likely that the policies of the New Deal perpetuated the problems, made the US vulnerable to foreign attack and set up the federal government as a proponent of the welfare state (Coleman, 2010). Expecting the US federal government to fix the problem is like asking the arsonist how to put out the fire. His answer will be more matches.

States must recognize this federal economic depravity as the clarion call to re-establish the control over our own affairs – as guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

 

Coleman. D. (2010). What a fine mess: Responding to the chaos of government. Tate Publishing:Oklahoma.

Davies, E. (2011 November 26). National marches back to power in New Zealand. Reuters. Retrieved on 11-26-2011 from http://news.yahoo.com/zealand-polls-close-government-eyes-emphatic-win-063150277.html

NewZealand (2011). CIA Factbook. Retrieved 11-26-2011 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nz.html

Dec 11, 2011 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »