MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Tenth Amendment’

Keep Those Federal Troops out of American Cities | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on August 1, 2020

As a legal matter, of course, I have no doubt that federal judges and supporters of federal meddling could find a way to slice and dice the Constitution so as to make it say whatever they want. As a moral and historical question, however, it is clear that sending in federal troops without an invitation from local leaders is blatantly contrary to the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and is contrary to the Tenth Amendment.

It’s a safe bet that the authors of the Declaration of Independence would say that a scuffle in Denver clearly lies within the authority of the government in Colorado.

https://mises.org/power-market/keep-those-federal-troops-out-american-cities?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=19800a2cd3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_31_04_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-19800a2cd3-228343965

Ryan McMaken

The violence and the utter disregard for basic human rights displayed by the Left in recent years—combined with its support for war crimes when a Democrat is president—have made me inclined to play nice with conservatives these days. At least conservatives aren’t planning to torch my neighborhood any time soon, and at the moment they’re no worse than the Left on foreign policy.

On the other hand, sometimes even the relatively less bad guys (for now) come to some very dangerous conclusions.

[RELATED: About Those Spooky Federal Cops in Portland” by Jeff Deist]

Specifically, some authors at conservative publications are now demanding that the president send in federal agents and troops to make arrests and intervene in local law enforcement to pacify rioters in Portland and other American cities. These pundits are claiming that since local officials allegedly aren’t responding with sufficient alacrity to rioters, it’s time to send in federal troops.

It is questionable that the president has the legal authority to do this. But even if he does have this power—legally speaking—basic commonsense principles of subsidiarity and decentralization inveigh against federal intervention. In other words, a basic respect for the principles behind the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence ought to cause one to reject the notion that it’s a good idea to send in federal troops to “solve” the crime problems experienced in American cities.

Here’s one example: in an article titled “It’s Time to Crush the New Rebellion against Constitution” at Real Clear Politics, author Frank Miele claims “the president is designated as the commander in chief” and therefore “shall be expected to act during a crisis of ‘rebellion or invasion’ to restore public safety.”

Miele addresses two legal questions. The first is whether or not federal troops or agents can act independently when protecting federal property—such as a federal courthouse. The second question is whether or not federal troops can intervene even when no federal property is under threat.

Arguably, in the former case federal agents would be well within their prerogatives to protect federal property as a security guard might do. This, however, does not necessarily empower them to make arrests or assault citizens outside the federal property itself, on the streets of a city well outside the federal compound. The so-called constitutional sheriffs movement—which the Left hates—has it right on this. Local law enforcement ought to be the final authority when it comes to making arrests.

Clearly, however, Miele will not brook such limitations, and he supports the idea that federal troops can intervene “where no federal property is involved.”

And what are the limitations on this federal power? Basically, there are none, in Miele’s view. So long as we define our adversaries as people fomenting a “rebellion” nothing is off the table. Not surprisingly, Miele strikes a worshipful pose toward Abraham Lincoln’s scorched-earth campaign against the Southern states of the US in the 1860s. Those people were “rebels,” you see, so the president was right to “tak[e] bold action” even if it meant “skirting the Constitution.” Because “there was never any doubt where [Lincoln’s] allegiance lay,” it was perfectly fine when he abolished the basic legal rights of Americans, such as the right of habeas corpus.

The use of the word “rebellion” is central to understanding the profederal position here. Authors like Miele (and Andrew McCarthy at National Review) have routinely used words like “insurrection” or “rebellion” in order to support their claim the current unrest requires a Lincoln-like response, including a Lincolnesque abolition of half the Bill of Rights.

The Moral Case for Local Control, Made by American Revolutionaries

As a legal matter, of course, I have no doubt that federal judges and supporters of federal meddling could find a way to slice and dice the Constitution so as to make it say whatever they want. As a moral and historical question, however, it is clear that sending in federal troops without an invitation from local leaders is blatantly contrary to the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and is contrary to the Tenth Amendment.

As I explained here, the Declaration lists that the misuse of the executive’s (i.e., the king’s) troops was a reason for the American rebellion of 1776. These troops must receive the permission of local lawmakers:

The American revolutionaries and those who ratified the US constitution…thought they were creating a political system in which the bulk of land-based military power would rest in the hands of the state governments. Standing armies were to be strenuously opposed, and the Declaration of Independence specifically condemned the king’s use of military deployments to enforce English law in the colonies and “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” These principles go back at least as far as the English Civil War (1642–51), when opposition to standing armies became widespread.

Thus, any attempt to send in British troops without the approval of the colonial legislatures was an abuse. This same principle was later applied to the state legislatures in relation to federal power.

Sending in federal troops to override local officials is in direct opposition to the moral underpinnings of the American Revolution. But this doesn’t stop Miele, who then insists that Article IV of the Constitution authorizes federal invasions because the text says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” According to Miele, the “republican form of government” here “means government of the people, by the people and for the people—not the mob.”

This definition of a republic is something Miele apparently just made up. This is hardly a standard definition of “republic,” especially in the eighteenth century—the context most relevant for our purposes here. In those days, “republic” mostly meant “not a monarchy” and something like a decentralized state ruled by a commercial elite.

The idea that the president can send in troops anywhere whenever we decide that a local government is not guaranteeing a “republic”—based on whatever idiosyncratic definition of “republic” we might choose—is dangerous indeed.

In another example, we find authors “Because state and local Democrat officials refuse to restore order, the federal government must….Enough is enough. Those responsible for this new wave of insurrection must face the full force of federal law. ”

Note the language about “insurrection”—as if a minuscule clash between some left-wing and right-wing demonstrators in Denver—an example the authors use to justify their position—requires a federal invasion.

Presumably governments are expected to intervene to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

But which government shall do that? It’s a safe bet that the authors of the Declaration of Independence would say that a scuffle in Denver clearly lies within the authority of the government in Colorado. After all, the American patriots fought a war—and many died in it—to ensure local control outside the hands of a powerful executive in command of a standing army thousands of miles away.

It is indeed true that the rights of those who wished to see Malkin speak were violated. But here’s the thing: the rights of Americans are violated every single day in every city of America. Murders, rapes, thefts, and even gang warfare are not unheard of across this nation, year in and year out. Moreover, the data is clear that police agencies are really quite bad at bringing these criminals to justice.

So, should we call in the feds to solve these problems? There were more than fifty homicides just in the city of Denver last year. There were many more assaults and attempted murders. Doesn’t this level of bloodshed constitute a sort of “insurrection” against the decent people of the city? Certainly if we’re going to be free and loose with terms like these, as is now apparently the MO of advocates for federal intervention, our conclusion could easily be yes. We might conclude the local police are unwilling to do what it takes to “establish order” and do something about these terrorists and thugs. Will sending in the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security solve this problem?

Fortunately, cooler heads have somehow prevailed, and “sending in the feds” is not a run-of-the-mill policy option. This makes even more sense when we remember that there is zero reason to assume federal cops are better at bringing peace to a city than the state or local officials. These feds are the same people and organizations that have been running a failed and disastrous war on drugs for decades. These are the people who daily spy on law-abiding Americans, in blatant violation of the Bill of Rights. These are the people who were blindsided by 9/11 in spite of decades of receiving fat paychecks to “keep us safe.” These are the people (i.e., especially the FBI) who have conspired against Americans in order to unseat a democratically elected president.

Unfortunately, old habits die hard and the myth prevails on both the left and the right that if we’re not getting the result we want from politicians, then the answer lies in calling in other politicians from somewhere else to “solve” the problem. But just as it would be contrary to basic notions of self-government and self-determination to call in the UN or the Chinese government to “protect rights” in the United States, the same is true of calling in federal bureaucrats to “fix” the shortcomings and incompetence of state and local bureaucrats. The American revolutionaries created a decentralized, locally controlled polity for a reason. Abolishing federalism to achieve short-term political ends is a reckless way to go.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

About Those Spooky Federal Cops in Portland | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on July 21, 2020

Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. No standing federal police agencies or apparatus are required to enforce these; in fact the latter appears to be the express policy of our central bank. There should not be federal agents, overt or covert, in Portland.

https://mises.org/power-market/about-those-spooky-federal-cops-portland

Jeff Deist

Dear Portlandia progressives: a federal government big enough to take care of you is a federal government big enough to “take care of  you.”

Scary unidentifiable police, federal black sites, and procedureless snatching of individuals from the streets are the wholly predictable and natural consequences of the very policies you advocated for decades. Why do you imagine a big government with lots of power will restrict itself to the cozy “social issues” and economic takings you support? Government can seize the means of production, but not seize you? You wanted everything run from DC, and you got what you wanted. Plus you certainly would be every bit as outraged if federal agents concerned about the undermining of America surreptitiously snatched up a few “white supremacists,” right?

Progressives of all parties have cheered the relentless centralization of state matters—and rejection of the Tenth Amendment—for nearly 150 years. The shaky and infirm Incorporation Doctrine federalized the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court federalized social and economic issues, and the the alphabet soup of federal agencies created by progressive administrations federalized the regulatory state. Foreign policy was ripped away from Congress and commandeered by bureaucratic Deep State actors at the DOD, CIA, NSA, and the State Department. Thousands of new federal crimes were created by statute. These statutes in turn created a vast federal police state, one heavily influenced and provisioned by the residual weaponry and machinery of our overseas wars.

So now you wonder why the Feds are sent in to quell an uprising in Portland?

Who wanted to make the world safe for democracy? Remember Woodrow Wilson, suddenly a bad guy because of racism? At least Truman had the honesty to admit regrets about creating the CIA. Who wanted federal control over the retrograde Southern states? Who dismissed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as relics? Who derided states’ rights and nullification as legal cover for bigotry? And for the millionth time, “states’ rights” does not mean states have “rights” relative to their citizens; it refers to their retained powers in a federal system—so enough with the dishonest smears.

Who shrugged at Waco and Guantanamo Bay, for that matter? Or when Obama signed the NDAA?

At this writing, federal agents operating in the City of Roses appear to be from the Department of Homeland Security (sic). Here is what Ron Paul, a true man of peace yet despised by progressives, had to say back in 2002, shortly after the DHS was created with overwhelming support in Congress:

The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal. The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents. Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President’s critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington’s most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.

Similarly, Dr. Paul was scorned and attacked by progressives of all parties in the early 2000s for labeling the Bush/Ashcroft/Yoo junta as a “police state.” He was dismissed for opposing TSA at the airport, for opposing FISA warrants, for his Fourth Amendment absolutism, and especially for warning how American forays in the Middle East would come home in a multitude of ways.

Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. No standing federal police agencies or apparatus are required to enforce these; in fact the latter appears to be the express policy of our central bank. There should not be federal agents, overt or covert, in Portland. The riots taking place there are criminal matters for local authorities and local authorities alone. If residents and local politicians prefer to give the mob freedom to run amok over both public (taxpayer) and private property, while also threatening the physical safety of ordinary citizens, Uncle Sam has nothing to say about it. But the same people who demanded endless growth in the federal police and regulatory state ought to be more circumspect today. A cynic might call them hypocrites.

 

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Suddenly states’ rights are back on the table | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on April 16, 2020

Trump has done more for states’ rights than any other President in modern history. Not because he is trying to. Because he is universally hated by the left. And the lefties were the ones lagging behind on understanding why state governments are an important check on federal power.

The feds have long held money over the states as bribes to do their bidding where the control was not strictly legal. For instance, highway funds in exchange for each state raising the drinking age to 21.

How come the only people not allowed power is you and me?

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/suddenly-states-rights-are-back-on-the-table/

By Joe Jarvis

It must be confusing to be a “progressive” these days.

They criticize Trump’s lack of dictatorial control over the country to stop the CoronaVirus. He left the lockdowns to the state governments.

But then Trump suggests that the Feds will make the call on when to reopen the economy (AKA give people their rights back).

Trump said, “When somebody’s the President of the United States, the authority is total… The President of the United States calls the shots.”

And just like that, the Tenth Amendment was reborn.

Suddenly, the radical left loves the Constitution! Specifically the part of the Bill of Rights that says:

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.

Trump has done more for states’ rights than any other President in modern history. Not because he is trying to. Because he is universally hated by the left. And the lefties were the ones lagging behind on understanding why state governments are an important check on federal power.

But Trump has strengthened the argument for state power on the right as well. I mean we’re looking at a $4 trillion deficit in the Federal budget this year alone! It took Obama four years to rack up that kind of debt.

Ignoring the Trump fanatics, grounded people understand that this massive spending comes with a real price tag. It means the dollar, and the federal government will lose its power as the currency is devalued.

The feds have long held money over the states as bribes to do their bidding where the control was not strictly legal. For instance, highway funds in exchange for each state raising the drinking age to 21.

When that leverage is gone, and when the Feds can only pay their enforcers with worthless paper, it is logical to think the states will pick up the pieces, reject federal authority, and go their own ways.

This whole situation was brewing under the surface before. But the CoronaVirus is the trigger that could shift it into overdrive. And now, states look like they aren’t going to wait for a dollar collapse to make their moves.

For instance, the tiniest state, Rhode Island, has gone full Gestapo and is searching for New Yorkers who entered the state without quarantining. My parents live in Massachusetts, and my dad planned to sail his new boat down to Rhode Island to park it there. But that won’t be happening during this pandemic. Rhode Island is closed to outsiders.

Other states, like California, Oregon, and Washington are forming coalitions to decide when to reopen the economies, and how to further deal with CoronaVirus in the region. Like the United States was meant to be, these states are participating in these pacts voluntarily. That means they could also withdraw from them. Another check on centralized control.

Some east coast states will also be creating their own coalition.

And here is an important aspect of regional government to consider. This is not a new phenomena, or something that hasn’t been seen since the 1781 Articles of Confederation.

I recently read a book called American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, by Colin Woodard. (Amazon affiliate link)

It shows that there was never a “United” USA. The fault lines of politics have always fallen along eleven main regions.

For example, “Yankeedom” is dominated by Massachusetts, but extends to most of New England. It has its roots in Puritanism, their style of centralized government, and their value of education. Immigrants from Yankeedom left their mark on The Left Coast, a natural political ally of New England.

Contrast that with The Deep South, born of aristocracy, who believed in a deeply hierarchical structure of society. Or Appalachia, who value individual freedom, and have shifted their alliances with other regions based on who will get the feds off their back.

Woodard argues:

The nations have been struggling with one another for advantage and influence since they were founded. And from 1790, the biggest prize has been control over federal government institutions; Congress, the White House, Courts, and the Military.

As the central government has grown in size, scope, and power, so have the nations’ efforts to capture and reshape it, and the rest of the continent in their image.

Since 1877 the driving force between American politics hasn’t primarily been a class struggle, or tension between agrarian and commercial interests, or even between competing partisan ideologies, although each has played a role.

Ultimately, the determinative political struggle has been a clash between shifting coalitions of ethno-regional nations, one invariable headed by the Deep South, the other by Yankeedom.

These fault lines aren’t going away. But they don’t have to become violent either.

In fact, if the American nations were to go their separate ways, life would be much improved for many.

Not just during a pandemic, when people have very different ideas about the scope of government power.

But also during the looming economic crisis, when currencies, local supply chains, and regional commerce will have to be reinvented.

And no one would have to waste time worrying about who occupied the White House.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Rothbard: The Constitution Was a Coup d’État | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 14, 2020

When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object….But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire….Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism.

https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-constitution-was-coup-d%C3%A9tat

[Conceived in Liberty: The New Republic, 1784–1791. By Murray N. Rothbard. Edited by Patrick Newman. Mises Institute, 2019. 332 pages.]

We owe Patrick Newman a great debt for his enterprise and editorial skill in bringing to publication the fifth volume, hitherto thought lost, of Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty. The details of his rescue of the lost manuscript are indeed dramatic, but rather than recount them here, I should like to concentrate on a theme central to the new book.

It is well known that Rothbard took the American Revolution to be mainly libertarian in its inspiration. The libertarian impulses of the Revolution were betrayed by a centralizing coup d’état. As Rothbard puts it:

Basically, urban merchants and artisans, as well as many slaveholding planters, united in support of a strong nation-state that would use the power of coercion to grant them privileges and subsidies. The subsidies would come at the expense of the average subsistence yeoman farmer who might be expected to oppose such a new nationalism. But against them, to support a new constitution, were the commercial farmers aided by the southern plantation-farmers who also wanted power and regulation for their own benefit. Given the urban support, the split among the farmers, and the support from wealthy educated elites, it is not surprising that the nationalist forces were able to execute their truly amazing political coup d’état which illegally liquidated the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the Constitution. In short, they were able to destroy the original individualist and decentralized program of the American Revolution. (p. 128)

The theme I should like to concentrate on is this: what happens to the way we understand the Constitution if Rothbard is right that it was a centralizing document? The Anti-Federalists, with whom Rothbard agreed, denounced it for that reason. For example, in Virginia Patrick Henry, one of Rothbard’s heroes, said:

When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object….But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire….Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? (p. 262)

With all this as background, we can now consider the theme I’d like to stress. If the Anti-Federalists were right. We cannot say that the Constitution as originally written gave us a limited government that later regimes have ruthlessly and recklessly expanded. In taking this approach, Rothbard set himself firmly against the dominant trend in American conservative thought. He remarks:

The Constitution was unquestionably a high-nationalist document, creating what Madison once referred to as a “high mounted government.” Not only were the essential lines of the nationalistic Virginia Plan Report carried out in the Constitution, but the later changes made were preponderantly in a nationalist direction….While it is true that the general congressional veto over state laws and the vague broad grant of powers in the original Virginia Plan were whittled down to a list of enumerated powers, enough loopholes existed in the enumerated list: the national supremacy clause; the dominance of the federal judiciary; the virtually unlimited power to tax, raise armies and navies, make war, and regulate commerce; the necessary and proper clause; and the powerful general welfare loophole; all allowed the virtually absolute supremacy of the central government. While libertarian restraints were placed on state powers, no bill of rights existed to check the federal government. (p.211)

We can argue that later regimes extended national power beyond what the Constitution contemplated, but if Rothbard is right, the Constitution as written provides ample scope for tyranny.

One of the leading arguments of Constitutional conservatives is that since Congress is granted the power to declare war, military engagements by later presidents that bypass Congress are unconstitutional. (In several reviews, I have argued this way myself.) Rothbard does not agree. He says:

Congress’ proposed broad military powers occasioned much debate. The nationalists tried to narrow Congress’ power to make war into a more concentrated, and therefore a more controllable, form: Pinckney to the Senate only, Butler to the president himself. While these were defeated, Madison cunningly moved to alter congressional power: ‘make war’ became ‘declare war,’ which left a broad, dangerous power for the president, who was grandiosely designated in the draft as the ‘commander in chief’ of the U.S. army and navy, and of all the state militias. For now, the president might make war even if only Congress could formally declare it.” (p. 185)

Rothbard finds similar slippery language in the Tenth Amendment, imagined by some defenders of limited government to be a principal means to thwart efforts by the federal government to centralize power:

This amendment did in truth transform the Constitution from one of supreme national power to a partially mixed polity where the liberal anti-nationalists had a constitutional argument with at least a fighting chance of acceptance. However, Madison had cunningly left out the word “expressly” before the word “delegated,” so the nationalist judges were able to claim that because the word “expressly” was not there, the “delegated” can vaguely accrue through judges’ elastic interpretation of the Constitution….The Tenth Amendment has been intensely reduced, by conventional judiciary construction, to a meaningless tautology. (pp. 302–3)

(Note that Rothbard does not disagree with the nationalist judges’ interpretation.) Rothbard does see some hope of restraining the central government in the “forgotten” Ninth Amendment, but this was not to be invoked in a serious way by the Supreme Court until the 1960s.

Defenders of the Constitution as a bulwark of limited government often invoke the wisdom to be found in the Federalist Papers, but Rothbard views them as deceptive propaganda:

The essays contained in The Federalist were designed not for the ages—not as an explanation of nationalist views—but as a propaganda document to allay the fears and lull the suspicions of the Antifederal forces. Consequently, these field marshals of the Federalist campaign were concerned to make the Constitution look like a mixed concoction of checks-and balances and popular representation, when they really desired, and believed that they had, a political system of overriding national power. What is remarkable is the fact that historians and conservative political theorists have seized upon and canonized these campaign pieces as fountains of quasi-divine political wisdom, as hallowed texts to be revered, even as somehow a vital part of American constitutional law. (pp. 269–70)

James Madison’s argument that a large national republic would better cope with the dangers of factionalism than a small one is often invoked for its profundity, but Rothbard is not impressed:

Madison claimed that the greater diversity of interests over a large area will make it more difficult for a majority of the interests to combine and oppress a minority. It is difficult to see, however, why such a combination should be difficult….But the main fallacy in Madison’s argument is that it is part and parcel of the antidemocratic Federalist doctrine that the danger of despotic government comes, not from the government, but from among the ranks (i.e., the majority) of the public. The fallacy of this by now should be evident. Even if a majority approves an act of tyranny, it almost never initiates or elaborates or executes such action; rather they are almost always passive tools in the hands of the oligarchy of rulers and their allied favorites of the state apparatus. (pp. 270–71)

Rothbard concludes with this verdict on the Constitution:

Overall, it should be evident that the Constitution was a counterrevolutionary reaction to the libertarianism and decentralization embodied in the American Revolution. The Antifederalists, supporting states’ rights and critical of a strong national government, were decisively beaten by the Federalists, who wanted such a polity under the guise of democracy in order to enhance their own interests and institute a British-style mercantilism over the country. Most historians have taken the side of the Federalists because they support a strong national government that has the power to tax and regulate, call forth armies and invade other countries, and cripple the power of the states. The enactment of the Constitution in 1788 drastically changed the course of American history from its natural decentralized and libertarian direction to an omnipresent leviathan that fulfilled all of the Antifederalists’ fears. (p. 312)

There is evidence that Rothbard wrote the manuscript of this book before 1967 (see p. 312, editor’s note 7). But I do not think that he later changed his mind about the Constitution. Those who wish to challenge his brilliant analysis have a difficult task ahead of them.

Be seeing you

Murray Rothbard’s Practical Politics | The American Conservative

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

There Are Two Kinds of Nullification, Three If You Count Marriage

Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2012

One is the kind exemplified by the Tenth Amendment Foundation. The idea being the federal government can pass laws only in affairs that are interstate. One recent example of this is where a gun manufacturer who only sells intrastate rightly claims he is not subject to BATF oversight. The tenth amendment has been overlooked for so long that any mention brings instant disdain. “Nonsense! We have always had the power” say those with the power.

The second is jury nullification. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Fascism | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »