Video of Senator Pearce asking you to be at the nullificat​ion hearing!

Elizabeth Allen Hodge of Legislative Watch interviews Senator Monty Pearce. This video is about H0117, Idaho's ObamaCare nullification legislation that will be heard in Senate Committee on Friday, the 25th at 8 AM at the State Capitol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hh2jHAawM4



Senator Pearce is one of our courageous state legislators who is unafraid of taking on the federal government in order to protect Idaho's citizens. But he can't do it himself - he is asking YOU to be there on Friday to support this bill. Please put other plans on hold and take the time to attend the hearing - even if you don't testify, your presence there will make a huge difference. For those of you who do want to have your voice heard - you can testify in person at the hearing, or you can leave a written testimony with the clerk. Be sure your contact info is included with it.

This is it, people! This is our chance to draw the line in the sand that we have been waiting for!

We may not get another chance to fight this horrendous bill - so PLEASE MAKE THE TIME FOR THIS HEARING AND BE THERE FRIDAY MORNING, Feb, 25TH - 8 AM - STATE CAPITOL, basement, senate auditorium.

PLEASE PASS THIS FAR AND WIDE - we need to contact as many Idahoans as possible.

Violent Media Hypocrisy

If conservatives are responsible for the tragic shooting of a Congresswoman in Arizona over a month ago, then liberals are responsible for the recent outbreaks of violence directed towards certain Idaho public servants. Following this line of reasoning, it's the liberal media, teacher's union and their demonizing rhetoric that have escalated the situation to violence.

The media conveniently ignored the Arizona Shooter's Leftist Connections To Ayers, Obama during their non-stop coverage, Politicizing Ariz. Mass Shooting to Demonize Guns, Conservatives instead.

Where's their righteous indignation and universal condemnation of violence now? The more recent hostile confrontation and destruction of property in Idaho triggered little more than a news blip that was inexcusably dismissive of numerous related threats of thug tactics against Idaho public servants.

The Idaho Education Association said, “We cannot and will not let stories like this distract us... remain focused on the goal of defeating legislation that is bad for Idaho children and teachers.” And their media lapdogs obeyed.

Move along people. There's nothing to see here.

Idaho's ObamaCare Nullification Bill Is Constitutional

This excellent article quotes from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to rebut the opinion of Idaho's AG that Idaho's healthcare nullification bill is unconstitutional.

The last election demonstrated that the American people do not want nationalized health care. One of the first things the new Congress did was repeal it. Idaho's two congressmen voted for repeal.

On Monday another federal district court judge agreed with 26 state-government plaintiffs, including Idaho, and ruled that the new national health care law is unconstitutional, and that the entire law must be voided.

The lawsuits and the fight to repeal this in Congress will likely last for years. Many have concluded that the best strategy is nullification on a state-by-state basis. With so much of our freedom and prosperity at stake it is highly advisable to pursue all three strategies.

Nullification refers to the process by which a state passes a law declaring certain federal laws to be null and void within that state based on the absence of constitutional authority for the federal government to pass such laws. Historian Thomas Woods has written an excellent history of state nullification of federal laws in his book, "Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century."

In recent years dozens of states, including Idaho, have introduced various nullification-type bills to stop Real ID, to affirm the Tenth Amendment, to reject federal firearms laws for guns manufactured, sold, and used intrastate (known as Firearms Freedom Acts), and to reject the federal mandate to buy healthcare insurance. With a couple dozen states taking a stand against various aspects of the Real ID Act, this federal program has been effectively stopped.

At least twelve states, including Idaho, have introduced bills this year to nullify the entire new health care law!

These twelve bills would nullify the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” because they were not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. Nearly all of these state bills have a provision for criminal penalties for federal and state agents who would try to enforce the federal mandate within that state.

Idaho estimates that nullification will save state taxpayers initially more than $228,000,000!

It's appalling that some would waste our time and taxpayer dollars implementing this unconstitutional federal mandate, another bureaucracy like those that have never worked and cannot succeed and will only further destroy our freedom and prosperity.

While it appears that we are on the way to having nullification bills introduced in 20 or more states within the next year, it is necessary to get as many as possible of the already-introduced bills passed. It's hard to predict the course of events in this situation, but it would be a healthy first step toward restoration of federalism, where states are asserting their Tenth Amendment powers as parties to the compact that created the federal government in the first place.

The states should rein in our out-of-control federal government by enforcing the Constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal mandates!

Click here to send an email message in support of nullification of the entire ObamaCare law to your state representative, state senator, governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general. We must stop ObamaCare before it destroys our healthcare system!

Nullifying good journalism



by Michael Maharrey

AP reporter John Miller provides a textbook example of sloppy, agenda driven “journalism” in a piece headlined GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight published on Jan. 26.

Miller cobbles together a report clearly reflecting his personal opinion on the subject, and while he would surely argue that the story holds completely to the facts, he links those facts together in a way that leads the reader to his forgone conclusion.

Perhaps Miller doesn’t know any better, but he also omits vital information, leaving the reader with an incomplete understanding of nullification. He can either plead ignorance, making him a lazy reporter, or he left those bits of information out on purpose, making him an agenda driven hack.

Either way, he earns low marks as a professional journalist.

Let’s look at some specifics.

Miller sets up his assumption in the language of his lede graph.

“Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states are reaching into the dusty annals of American history to fight President Obama’s health care overhaul.”

Note the wording – dusty annals of American history. In other words, nullification isn’t really something to take seriously. It’s old. (He re-emphasizes that point when he mentions Jefferson “philosophical guidance” 211 years ago.) Old means irrelevant and arcane. And if it’s old, irrelevant and arcane, you need not pay attention to it.

Miller frames the story with the loaded language in his opening graph and proceeds to hang it nicely inside.

He goes on to declare the notion of nullification unconstitutional. His source? “Most legal scholars…”

Presumably, Miller interviewed or at least read the opinions of most legal scholars in this country.

Or not.

Nowhere does he bother to cite any cogent opposing viewpoint. And it does exist. In fact, the logic is quite simple. He should be able to grasp it, even with all of the time spent talking to “most legal experts”. Quite simply, if Congress passes legislation reaching outside of its constitutionally prescribed delegated powers, it is not law at all, but an unconstitutional act – by definition illegal. The Constitution stands as the supreme law of the land, not the court. And unconstitutional acts cannot hold a place of supremacy over a state law.

Miller spends the next several graphs describing other radical “conservative” activities. They don’t have anything to do with nullification, but they fit the frame, so he throws them in.

I love some of the loaded language. “Anti-government angst running high.” “Tea Party crowd.” “Secession.” Miller clearly intends to paint nullification the color of extremism – right wing extremism to boot. He doesn’t come out and say it, of course. That would be non-objective. He lets the language serve as his brush.

Finally, he gets into the origins of nullification, lazily hanging the entire concept on the writing of Thomas Jefferson. I have to give him credit for basically explaining the Kentucky Resolutions correctly, all in one sentence. Well, except for the incorrect date. But why quibble? Anyway, after his cursory explanation of the principle’s origin, Miller simply sweeps the third president’s idea aside in one sentence.

“And his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions…”

I suppose I could say the same about “most legal scholars”. Or supreme court justices for that matter.

But I digress.

At this point, Miller takes the opportunity to create a little “gotcha” moment. He quotes Idaho Republican Sen. Monty Pearce saying Jefferson was at the constitutional convention.

Miller writes:

“Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation.”

Good one John!

But perhaps Miller should have included the fact that James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, wrote the Virginia Resolution the same year, mirroring Jefferson’s reasoning. And that Madison laid out the fundamental principle of state resistance to overreaching federal power in Federalist 46.

But then again, who cares? That was just Madison’s opinion.

Miller moves on to assert, “Nullification has been invoked several times over the years — to no avail.”

He mentions the tariff act that South Carolina fought in the 1830s. He points out that it “nearly provoked armed conflict.”

Nearly, but it didn’t.

In fact, the feds backed down, and in a compromise, agreed to roll back the tariff over time. Sounds like at least a partial win for South Carolina. But that doesn’t fit the template.

And Miller fails to mention to modern cases of successful nullification. Numerous states refused to implement the Real ID act of 2005, rendering the act functionally void, and 15 states have defied federal law and implemented medicinal marijuana programs, without tanks rolling through the streets.

Finally, near the end of the story, Miller gets around to citing an intellectual source on nullification. But not before a little character assassination. Thomas Woods earned his undergrad degree in history from Harvard. He holds a masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University. But Miller doesn’t mention these credentials. He does mention that “as a college student in 1994, Woods helped found the League of the South, an Alabama group the Southern Poverty Law Center says has become a ‘neo-Confederate group’ seeking a second Southern secession.”

In other words, Woods is a racist and what he has to say isn’t relevant, but here it is anyway. Never mind that the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t exactly count as an unbiased source of information. And never mind that Woods no longer has any association with the League of the South. (Yes, Miller did mention this fact as an afterthought. But really, why mention the association at all? What does it have to do with the story? Oops. Sorry. Asking too many questions.)

Interestingly, Miller fails to tell us anything about the organizational memberships, paper subjects or college hi-jinks of “most legal scholars”, Idaho Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane, or David Gray Adler – all sources asserting nullification is an unconstitutional, archaic concept.

But I’m sure Miller thoroughly checked all of their backgrounds to make sure there was no ties to any progressive advocacy groups and no skeletons in their closets. No dirty laundry there for sure.

Miller makes a mockery of journalism with this story. Agree or disagree with the concept or wisdom of nullification, it has its roots in the founding philosophy of the nation and in the original understanding of the Constitution. It was invoked frequently in the first century of the Republic’s existence, by members of every political party, in the north and in the south. It stands on solid philosophical ground and has been successfully utilized in the last decade.

But Miller doesn’t bother to get into any of those complex nuances. Miller doesn’t bother to provide a balanced story explaining nullification. Miller doesn’t even bother to fact-check his work to make sure he gets something as basic as the date of the Kentucky Resolutions correct.

In short, he fails to do the basic job of a fair objective journalist.

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.

Nullification, the Media, and Idaho: Message from Tom Woods

Tom Woods discusses media coverage of nullification and urges supporters in Idaho and around the country not to be cowed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_KuIL7icUc



http://statenullification.com/

Nullifying Federal Nullification: Time for States to Stand Tall

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/selwyn-duke/6073-nullifying-federal-nullification-time-for-states-to-stand-tall

Question: Are rules meant for only one side? Are civil laws meant for citizens but not the police? Are moral laws meant for laymen but not clergy?

Okay, one more: Are constitutional limitations meant for states but not the feds?

Our federal government has long violated the Constitution. But blatantly unconstitutional ObamaCare may finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as lawmakers in nearly a dozen states have been talking about “nullification” — the Thomas Jefferson doctrine that recognizes states’ right to reject unconstitutional federal law.

And now it’s more than just talk. Republicans in the Idaho House introduced a nullification measure on Wednesday, and legislators in Alabama, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas, and Wyoming may follow suit.

Not surprisingly, the statists among us meet this proposal with disdain. The Associated Press is running the headline, “GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight” (funny, the Left loves 1700s Jeffersonian ideas when they happen to be cynicism about the clergy). And Idaho’s Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane criticized the effort, saying, “There is no right to pick and choose which federal laws a state will follow.”

Really? Question: Does this hold true when the federal government is picking and choosing which constitutional restrictions it will follow?

Statists like to cite the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) as stating that federal laws are “the supreme law of the land” — the AP article makes this claim. But this is untrue, the result of a selective reading. Here is the passage with the necessary context:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land…[emphasis added].”

“In pursuance thereof” is pretty important. The clause makes clear that only laws that follow the Constitution enjoy co-status with the document as supreme.

At this point the statists will say, “Okay, so we’ll go to the Supreme Court; its job is to determine what’s constitutional.” This is the judicial supremacy that enables federal supremacy. But did you ever wonder where the idea of Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter, with the right to overrule the legislative and executive branches (judicial review), comes from?

Answer: The Supreme Court itself.

(And this opinion was rendered, the Associated Press et al. should note, in what was basically a 1700s-era decision.)

In the famous (infamous?) Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Wow, imagine that, an entity decides it wants more power and claims that power for itself. I bet that’s never before happened in history … except with virtually every monarch, dictator, and tyrant who has ever lived.

Now, with monarchs, dictators, and tyrants people often take the claim seriously (or at least posture to that effect) because not doing so often means some kind of unpleasant death. But note that the courts have no power to enforce their whims or, as some would say, their rulings — all they can do essentially is talk. That power belongs to the executive branch. Yet its role is to enforce the law — not the rule of lawyers. So why do we take the Court’s power grab seriously?

I suppose the answer is that people want some entity that can mediate disputes, and since judges are called “judges,” people naturally look to them for judging. Yet since getting a law degree and donning a black robe don’t magically bestow one with infallible discernment, why would we show unfailing obeisance to these lawyers-cum-oligarchs? And if we are to suddenly lend an entity’s will to power credence, what about the ambitions of other small groups or individuals? Why look down on Hugo Chavez? He’s just assuming power he tells us he deserves.

Oh, if you would dispute me on this, know that I am the ultimate arbiter of reality. How can you know?

I just told you so.

Of course, you don’t have to believe me. Thomas Jefferson, who was president when the Marbury v. Madison decision came down, later warned that if the judiciary is to be considered the last word on constitutional matters, “then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se.”

This means an act of suicide.

Jefferson continued:

For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…. The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

And he subsequently stated quite bluntly, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy [emphasis added].”

And this is precisely what we now have.

In all fairness to Chief Justice John Marshall, he would likely be appalled at how today’s Court plays fast and loose with the Constitution. After all, he wrote in his decision, “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?”

Yet today’s government passes these limits at will. We have politicians who scoff at the Constitution, such as when Nancy Pelosi dismissed a constitutional question with, “Are you serious?! Are you serious?!” And we have justices who rubber-stamp such constitutional trespass with living-document rationalizations, such as when Ruth Bader-Ginsburg said that our Constitution mustn’t be “stuck in time.” But it isn’t; it’s stuck in law, supreme law that can only lawfully be changed through the Amendment Process.

The federal government has a nice racket going: It legislates more and more power for itself and has its own likeminded judiciary approve it with a wink and a nod. It has given us a living document and a dying republic.

But we don’t have to commit suicide by judge. If the feds can nullify the Constitution, the states can and must nullify their nullification. And when the Court “steps in,” we should tell it to step off, as we paraphrase President Andrew Jackson and say, “The justices have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.”

Idaho Among States Moving to Nullify ObamaCare

The Idaho legislature is expected to take up legislation on Wednesday, January 26, aimed at nullifying Obamacare within the Gem State. The draft bill by state Senator Monty Pearce declares the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (which, combined, comprise what is commonly called "Obamacare") to be "not authorized by the Constitution of the United States," and therefore, "are null, void and of no effect regarding any Idaho citizen residing within the borders of the state of Idaho."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6037-states-move-to-nullify-obamacare