How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century

Nullification is an indispensable book about what could become the most effective means of stopping an out-of-control federal government. Nullification is simply an act by states (and occasionally individuals) to resist unconstitutional federal laws.

Action Item:

• Ask your local bookstore to stock Nullification and then get a copy for you and for one of your legislative candidates.
• Get some liberty-loving friends to do the same thing so bookstores display it and all of your legislative candidates get a copy.

Citizens across the country are fed up with the politicians in Washington telling us how to live our lives—and then sticking us with the bill. But what can we do? Actually, we can just say “no.” As New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr., explains, nullification allows states to reject unconstitutional federal laws. For many tea partiers nationwide, nullification is rapidly becoming the only way to stop an over-reaching government drunk on power. From privacy to national healthcare, Woods shows how this growing and popular movement is sweeping across America and empowering states to take action against Obama’s socialist policies and big-government agenda.

Unconstitutional laws are pouring out of Washington...

...but we can stop them.

Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is a “rightful remedy” to federal power grabs—it’s called Nullification.

In Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, historian and New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains not only why nullification is the constitutional tool the Founders envisioned, but how it works—and has already been employed in cases ranging from upholding the First Amendment to knocking down slave laws before the Civil War. In Nullification, Woods shows:

• How the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny—and how a growing roster of governors and state attorneys general are recognizing they need to become that again
• Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the rights of states to nullify unconstitutional laws
• Why it was left to the states to uphold the simple principle that an unconstitutional law is no law at all
• Why, without nullification, ordinary Americans will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws
• PLUS thorough documentation of how the Founding Fathers believed nullification could be applied

Nullification is not just a book—it could become a movement to restore the proper constitutional limits of the federal government. Powerful, provocative, and timely, Nullification is sure to stir debate and become a constitutional handbook for all liberty-loving Americans.

Stewards of our State

Idaho State Representative Dennis Lake, chairman of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, says, “2011 is all about revenue enhancement.” How do you like the new codewords for raising taxes?

The Sovereign Idaho Coalition had an extremely successful 2010 legislative session. We made state sovereignty issues the prevailing theme of the session.

2011 is not an election year. 2009 wasn't an election year either and you may remember some of the irresponsible attempts to raise taxes that year. Governor Otter says that in 2011, "The legislature is going to have an opportunity to look for additional revenues."

2011 will be a battle no matter how the November elections go. Supporters of Big Government are already planning their media talking points and marshaling their forces to reverse the responsible reductions in the size of government that were accomplished in 2010.

About this time last year we began forming our strategies that resulted in our 2010 successes. Our formula was effective - partially because we enjoyed the element of surprise - but you can be sure we will not go unchallenged in 2011.

Now is the time:

• To build on our momentum and return government to its limited, low-cost role.
• For our state government to protect Idahoans from federal usurpations by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws.
• To promote free enterprise and defend sensible government cutbacks.

In 2010 we passed the Health Freedom Act, the Firearms Freedom Act, and the Public School Financial Transparency Act. Plus, we made significant progress on sound money for Idaho.

In 2011 we would like to pass a Federal Health Care Nullification Act, a Constitutional Tender Act, a Constitutional Carry Act, and a Fully Informed Jury Act. Plus, we want to equip you to influence your legislators and prevent any tax increases in Idaho.

Every political season is like a new chess game - always mix up strategies or your opponents will gain a predictable advantage.

This year, instead of Converging on the Capitol in the middle of winter to wander around trying to find our representatives and then compete against lobbyists for their ear, we're going to meet with our representatives in their home districts when and where we have a lot more influence on them.

When's the best time to have a group sit down with your legislators? They head to Boise near the beginning of January. November and December are not good months because of the holidays. The months leading up to the November 2 election are perfect (Aug, Sept, Oct). They will be looking for opportunities to meet with their constituents and we will deliver!

How about a Tea Party with your Legislators. They're not invited to give a stump speech. They're invited to listen to your concerns and be reminded that they work for the people, not for the special interests, lobbyists and bureaucrats. Set a time and place, line up speakers for the various issues, invite all the candidates and get as many patriots there as possible.

Sovereign Idaho Coalition Chairman, Pete Ketcham, is ready to fly/travel around the state and deliver presentations about nullification at your event if you'd like a lead spokesman to address the legislators. He can be contacted at 208-983-7552.

John Birch Society State Coordinator, Dale Pearce, is also available for speaking about nullification and for helping you reach out to local health care and other professionals to help stimulate their support in convincing state legislators to take nullification action in the coming legislative session. He can be contacted at 208-466-4664.

By working in concert with patriots across the state we can hold our representatives accountable to their duty. Unite with the Sovereign Idaho Coalition - Stewards of our State - and let's make Idaho the freest state in the Union.

Visit http://groups.google.com/group/sovereign-idaho-coalition to coordinate with others in your legislative district and plan a Tea Party with your Legislators.

Veto Power of the People

“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary.” - Constitution of the State of Idaho, Article I, Section 2

Similar wording is found in most other state constitutions, in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. However, similar wording is not found in most school “social studies” textbooks.

American jurisprudence is built on the foundation of common law and natural rights which are firmly established in our founding documents. Any acts of government which defy common law and violate natural rights are null and void.

Jury nullification is one of the important legal and peaceful processes by which the people can resist and nullify unjust laws. It is a de facto and traditional power of juries, even though modern textbooks and judges rarely, if ever, inform people of the jury's nullification power.

The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of common law - a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further protected by two other common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict and the prohibition on retrying defendants after an acquittal.

If the people have all power, and have at all times a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper, then they certainly have the right of jury nullification, which is tantamount to altering or reforming their government when they come together on juries to decide cases.

A single nullification verdict against a particular law may or may not alter or reform the government, but thousands of such verdicts certainly do. Witness the decisive role of jury nullification in establishing freedom of speech and press in the American Colonies, defeating the Fugitive Slave Act and ending alcohol prohibition.

There is no doubt that jury nullification was one of the rights and powers that the people commonly exercised in 1791 when the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution was adopted. As legal historian Lawrence Friedman has written:

In American legal theory, jury-power was enormous, and subject to few controls. There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases. This idea was particularly strong in the first Revolutionary generation when memories of royal justice were fresh. Jury nullification is therefore one of the “rights . . . retained by the people” in the Ninth Amendment. And it is one of the “powers . . . reserved . . . to the people” in the Tenth Amendment.

Jury nullification is decentralization of political power. It is the people’s most important veto in our constitutional system. The jury vote is the only time the people ever vote on the application of a real law in real life.

The vast majority (probably over 99%) of jurors are unaware of their lawful right and power to judge the justness of the law and disregard it if they felt enforcing that law would bring an unjust guilty verdict.

Wiley Drake, Pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, CA, was charged with violating city zoning laws because he had exercised his duty to house and care for the poor and the homeless on Church grounds. The trial judge had misinformed the jury that they cannot consider Pastor Drake’s motives or intent, nor could they judge the law. In short, the judge told the jurors that if they find that Pastor Drakes had violated the bad and unjust law, that they must convict Pastor Drake.

Well, the jurors followed the judge’s instructions and convicted Pastor Drake of the "crime" of housing and caring for the poor on his church grounds in "violation" of city zoning codes. A few days after the trial, these jurors found out that they had the right and power to judge this bad and unjust law and could have acquitted Pastor Drake.

These jurors came to Pastor Drake’s church and apologized to Pastor Drake for their misguided conviction of him. These jurors were mad at the judge for deliberately misleading the jurors into believing that they could not judge the law as well as the facts of the case.

But no apology could reverse the wrongful conviction of Pastor Drake. The Judge could have jailed Pastor Drake for up to 2 years!!! He didn’t do so only because of the huge publicity that Pastor Drake was getting in the press. Similarly, thousands of people are wrongfully charged and convicted every month for violating bad, unjust and unconscionable laws. Some day a bad law can be used against YOU!

So what is the solution for bringing justice back to our courts?

An Idaho Fully Informed Jury Act would require the judge in every trial to inform the jury of its inherent power to judge the law as well as the facts of the case before them so that no innocent man like Pastor Drake would be wrongfully convicted by a misinformed jury.

Judges would be required to add something like the following to their instructions to the jury:

"It is the duty of the court to advise you of the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; if you find that the law or the application which the court instructs you upon is unjust, you may vote to acquit the defendant or find him not liable for damages."

Would you like the legislature to pass an Idaho Fully Informed Jury Act? Forward this to candidates for state legislature and ask them to sponsor it. Do you think more Americans should know about this? Forward it to your email list.

Learn more about jury nullification:

• The Jury Box
• Juror’s Handbook
• Jury Education Committee
• Fully Informed Jury Association

Legislative Immunity: Who Benefits? by Rep. Matt Shea

Recently, an oft quoted myth has resurfaced that legislative immunity is a perk for State Representatives which can be invoked whenever convenient. For example, this myth is being used as the basis for accusations of impropriety being leveled against Idaho State Representative Phil Hart (3rd H.D.)

Rep. Hart has relied on a provision in the Idaho Constitution to postpone an income tax controversy he is involved in until after the conclusion of the legislative session. Both Washington and Idaho legislators are protected from “any civil process” while their legislatures are in session. As a threshold matter of state sovereignty that protection also includes civil process attempted by the federal government.

State Constitutions

Article 2, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution reads:

Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

Similarly Article III, Section 7 of Idaho’s Constitution reads:

Senators and representatives in all cases...shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof…

There are eleven states that have similar language in their respective constitutions which use the phrase “any civil process.” An I.R.S. decision on what Rep. Hart’s allowable business deductions are is administrative in nature and clearly a civil matter because it involves an attempt to take property. It is therefore, “any civil process.”

The History of and Reasons for Legislative Immunity

Our Founding Fathers just freed from English tyranny wanted to ensure that elected Representatives would not face arbitrary arrest for the sake of political retribution.

As stated by the United States Supreme Court:

The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: "That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament." 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113-114 (1839)... Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).

The Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the people’s voice was protected and uninhibited:

The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. "In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence." Id. at 373.

The court continued in summary “Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good. One must not expect uncommon courage even in legislators. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial… [Emphasis added] Id. at 377.

This idea has been affirmed time and again in many states.

In Wisconsin the Speaker of the House’s office received a subpoena for one of the speaker’s administrative assistants related to an audit of a lobbyist’s tax return. The Speaker took the position that his administrative assistant was his alter ego and should be protected by the constitutional provision that a member of the legislature not be “subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature….” The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with the Speaker.

“…the meaning of a constitutional provision may be determined by looking at the objectives of the framers in adopting the provision. We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the rationale for the privilege was to preserve the public’s right to representation in the state legislature. When a legislator cannot appear the people whom the legislator represents lose their voice in debate and vote.” [Emphasis added] State v. Beno, 341 N.W. 2d 668 (1984).

In Michigan there was a legislator who had a garnishment on his wages. The judgement was in place before the legislative session started. The Attorney General for the state of Michigan defended the legislator because the garnishment was viewed more as an attack against the legislative branch of government as opposed to an attack on the legislator. The Michigan Constitution uses the same “any civil process” language used in Idaho and Washington. Here is what the Michigan Supreme Court said of the garnishment:

“This is too narrow view of the situation. The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry, and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the state could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.” Fuller v. Barton, 208 N.W. 696 (1926).

In Arizona and Wisconsin the Attorneys General agreed that a garnishment shall not be allowed on a legislator’s paycheck during the legislative session in their respective states. The Arizona Attorney General cited the Fuller v. Barton case as his authority. “It is my opinion that the Arizona constitutional provision prohibits garnishment proceedings, and, therefore, you should not honor any garnishments involving any legislator during the sessions of the Legislature.” Arizona, Opinion of Attorney General, No. 56-24.

In Kansas the point is made again that the immunity provision of their constitution is for the benefit of the state and of the people that the legislator represents.

The use of the words “subject to” means that the member is not “liable to” the service of civil process. To construe our constitution differently would be to defeat its apparent object. The state is clearly entitled to the service of its members of the legislature during the time sessions of either branch thereof are being held. Our constitution has wisely provided that the members shall not be annoyed with arrests or suits, or be obliged to be absent from their duties….” Cook v. Senior, 45 P. 126, 127-8 (1896).

In California the language in that state constitution reads “A member of the Legislature is not subject to civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 5 days before and after a session.” The California Court of Appeals said:

In precise terms article IV, section 14, creates an exception from civil process without qualification as to the kind of subject matter of the lawsuit. Similar exemptions have been construed to cover civil actions of all kinds, including those involving the legislator’s personal affairs. …such immunities are designed to benefit the public by protecting legislators against compelled distraction and interference during the session.” Harmer v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. Reporter 855 (1969).

And finally in my state, Washington, a member of the Washington Senate, was sued for legal malpractice because he filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired. Senator Gordon Walgren, in his capacity as an attorney, argued successfully that the statute of limitations tolls (is postponed) while he was tied up with the business of the legislature.

These similar constitutional provisions convince us that immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of “any civil process” should be granted during the constitutional described time periods… When a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by some positive rule of law, the time during which he is prevented from bringing suit is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right… Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 774 (1973).

This is exactly the case with Representative Phil Hart. The deadline to appeal given by the IRS or the Idaho Tax Commission should toll (be postponed) during the legislative session. Otherwise, Rep. Hart would have likely missed votes and debate to address his tax litigation. However, it is important to also note that this constitutional provision cannot be waived. For example:

In Alaska, that Attorney General says the legislator has no flexibility. According to him, exercising the immunity from civil process is mandatory. “Immunity against civil process cannot be waived by the legislator since the Alaska immunity is intended to protect the public as well as serve the convenience of the legislators.” Alaska, Attorney General Opinion, 159 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 8.

Conclusion

Rep. Hart has relied on the legislative immunity provision of the Idaho Constitution to postpone working on his own tax issues, which have been ongoing for a few years. There is no question that it is within the sovereign power of the states to afford this protection. Furthermore, the law seems to be clearly on Rep. Hart’s side. So why does the witch hunt continue? Has the I.R.S. ever been used as a weapon for political retribution? Both President Richard Nixon(1) and President Bill Clinton were accused of this.(2)

For a man who wrote a book challenging the I.R.S. definition of “income,”(3) to face an arbitrary I.R.S. denial of normal business deductions(4) and then not be allowed to appeal that decision because the I.R.S. ignores the Idaho Constitution while he is in legislative session…is a glimpse into the future of an Obama nation. Remember Obama’s request for 16,000 additional I.R.S. agents?

Not only are Rep. Hart’s accusers in error, but the entire situation substantiates the very reason legislative immunity was written into the constitution in the first place…to prevent political persecution.

Matt Shea is an Army combat veteran, practicing attorney, and State Representative for the 4th Legislative District in Spokane Valley, Washington.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon's_Enemies_List
2. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml
3. http://www.constitutionalincome.com
4. It has been reported in the press that the IRS’s denial of 100% of Rep. Hart’s business deductions over an eight year period was political payback after Rep. Hart’s refusal to turn over the names and addresses of those who purchased his book. Now both the IRS and the Idaho Tax Commission are attempting to impose the income tax on the amount of these denied deductions which totals approximately $300,000.

Meltup

Meltup may be the most important economic documentary ever produced. The Second American Revolution has begun! Please share this documentary with all of your friends and family members immediately!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb1n1X0Oqdw

Nullify Now!

Did you know that states don’t have to obey unconstitutional federal legislation forced upon them?

Virginia, Utah, Idaho, and other states are fighting the federal healthcare law. Arizona is protecting its borders. Washington State, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are fighting cap-and-trade legislation. Eight states are standing up for gun rights. Twenty-five states have effectively blocked the 2005 Real ID Act…

How? Through nullification.

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 that state is concerned.

Nullify Now! is a multi-city event tour focused on education and activism on a state level to say NO to unconstitutional federal “laws” – which, in reality, are not laws at all.

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS AND TO GET TICKETS TODAY!

World-class speakers like Thomas E. Woods will be on hand to explain just what nullification is, and how it works – both in history and right now.

Woods, who is the NY Times Best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically-Incorrect Guide to American History, has his latest book on sale now. In Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21 Century, he explains:

• How we can roll back Obamacare, cap and trade, and other unconstitutional expansions of federal power through nullification
• Why the Founding Fathers believed that nullification was the “moderate middle ground,” not the road to secession
• Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the states the power to nullify unconstitutional laws
• Why states – not the Supreme Court – should arbitrate disputes between the states and the federal government over the constitutionality of the federal government’s actions.

Other speakers in various locations include Jack Hunter of the American Conservative Magazine, and Jim Babka, president of DownsizeDC.

As Thomas Jefferson said, there is a “rightful remedy” to the federal government’s uncontrollable quest for power – it’s called Nullification!

Speakers and Event Dates

Independence from Modern Tyranny

“All men are created equal... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Americans have a great heritage of rebellion to tyranny. It's ingrained in our culture. Every year on Independence Day we remind our children of the sacrifices that were made for our liberty.

Our Founding Fathers rebelled against an out-of-control government after a long train of abuses and usurpations – a government not unlike our modern central government.

Today, executive power abuses have become standard operating procedure. Warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, “enhanced interrogation” (if it's not torture, why don't our police departments do it?), the list goes on and on. One administration does it to foreigners, the next does it to Americans - even claiming the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens.

This may be shocking to those who don't follow politics closely, but every day Washington D.C. acts more and more like the barbaric government we declared our independence from 234 years ago.

The Democrats' solution to federal abuses of power was a “change” in politicians. Nothing changed except the rate of government growth. The federal government continues taking over huge segments of the economy, usurping more and more powers that were originally reserved for the states, massively expanding health and welfare programs when we can't even meet previous obligations, enriching special interest cronies with taxpayer money, indebting future generations to incomprehensible levels, failing to protect our borders, and on and on and on!

Many Republicans not only want to change politicians, but they also want to provide new guards for our future security. The 2010 Idaho Republican Party State Convention last weekend was filled with ideas for restoring the timeless principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Unlike Idaho Democrats who shut the press out of their platform discussions just weeks ago, the GOP Convention was transparent and open to the public.

I was one of the Delegates to that Convention and would like to highlight some of the ideas that were presented. Of course, some will work out and some will never work their way through the extensive legislative process. I will divide the ideas into two categories - free market economics and government accountability - and explain some of the background reasoning.

ECONOMICS

The election of Miracle Man Obama - not only can he feed the six billion, but he can also provide them with housing, transportation, communications, defense, medical care, and retirement - proves that government schools have not accurately taught economics for generations.

Parents, even if you supplement your child's education with public or private schooling, it doesn't remove your primary responsibility. Please make sure they learn great American principles such as free market economics.

Let's define some basic economic terms and discuss how they relate to our circumstances. To learn more, I recommend the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://mises.org), a research and educational center that offers many thousands of free resources on economics and liberty.

• Inflation is an increase in the money supply. There is an average of a two year time delay between monetary inflation and the resulting price increases. So when will we likely see the results of the “bailouts” of late 2008 and the “stimulus” of early 2009?
• Deflation is a decrease in the money supply or when its rate of growth declines in relation to the increase in the production of other goods. It results in price decreases and was experienced for over 125 years of America's history (until creation of the Fed in 1913). Deflation means your money buys more and more instead of less and less.
• Velocity is the number of times per year the average dollar is exchanged in transactions. The great scare of 2008 caused a decrease in economic activity - lower velocity - which produced deflationary results in 2009. As the initial scare fades into the past, economic activity will increase and velocity will produce inflationary results.
• Hyperinflation is an extremely rapid increase in the money supply. There are many examples of the devastating results of hyperinflation in just the last century. Savings are wiped out virtually overnight. The ensuing economic chaos has resulted in riots and sets the stage for a police state. Having a sound money system in place would be our golden parachute.

Republicans passed another resolution and updated the platform to stress the importance of honest money as the foundation of a prosperous market economy. What's the biggest reason to restore sound money?

1. Big Government: The feds currently print unlimited dollars for “bailouts” and “stimulus” and to pay for the welfare/warfare state, reward their cronies, and buy the cooperation of state and local governments. Because they can't print unlimited amounts of gold and silver, lovers of Big Government despise sound money. Restore honest money and stop Big Government.
2. Transfer of Wealth: To illustrate how this works, let's say there was a total of $1 trillion in existence 10 years ago and you had worked, scraped, and saved $100 thousand for retirement. Everyone knows that the cost of groceries doubled in the last decade. Your $100 thousand now only buys $50 thousand worth of groceries. How did your other $50 thousand in earnings vanish into thin air? They doubled the money supply to $2 trillion (see point #1) which cut the purchasing value of your savings in half.

Republicans also called for reducing the tax burden to spur job growth, replacing Idaho's income tax with a fair tax, repealing the counterproductive Contractor Registration Act, and no fee increases without decreases in taxes.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Today we're told that the federal government alone gets to define its power. What a frightfully dangerous scenario that would be. If only one side in a contract gets to interpret the terms and can change them on a whim, it is no contract at all.

I think our Founders would be heartbroken, but I don't think they'd be surprised. They were well acquainted with the tendency toward tyranny when power is unchecked. They did their best to cripple their new government to prevent the centralization of power.

Unfortunately for America, partisan extremists from the left and the right are guilty of excusing violations of the Constitution when it's “their guy” in power, and then condemning the “other guys” until they reacquire power. What can we do to curtail abuses no matter who's in power?

Government accountability was a hot topic at the Idaho GOP Convention: from calling for the state checkbook to be posted online to holding Republican politicians accountable by getting their pledge of support for the party platform accompanied by a statement declaring any disagreements they have with it.

Many of the resolutions and platform changes focused on state's rights, restoring the proper balance of power and reigning in the federal government:

• We believe Idaho should strongly assert its sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “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.”
• We not only affirm our commitment to the tradition of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, but we also specifically call for the Idaho legislature to nullify the federal health care bills of 2010.
• U.S. Senators were originally appointed by the state legislature to represent state's rights in the national legislature, while Congressmen represented the people. Enacted in 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the way Senators are elected and state's rights have been ignored ever since. We call for repeal of the 17th Amendment.
• Redistricting Idaho should result in a new legislature made up of one senator from each county and representatives from districts based on population.
• We reject any federal interference in intrastate direct-to-consumer food commerce.
• All federal and state police actions should be approved by the county sheriff, the chief law enforcement office of the County.
• Juries have the right to determine both the facts and the law, and are not bound by the judge's interpretation of the law.
• Voters should be asked to approve debt-financed city projects.

I got to serve on the Resolutions Committee at the Convention. We were presented with 41 resolutions and passed 24 of them. Surprisingly, it took less than three hours to do it. When they were presented to the whole Convention the following day, several of them were shot down, including one that called for the establishment of an Idaho constitutional militia to protect against a disaster or similar occurrence.

With record attendance at this year's Convention, I believe it was a great success and much good will come of it. I thoroughly enjoyed it!