by Derek Sheriff – Arizona Tenth Amendment Center

In spite of the fact that the Constitution was recently read in its entirety (minus a few sections and amendments), for the first time in the history of the House, several senior Republicans must have either been absent or just weren’t paying attention to what they were hearing. (No) Surprise!

Less than three months after the historic reading, they were back to business as usual – the business of usurping more power from the states and consolidating it in Washington, DC. House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, demanding she not extend the May 11 deadline for the states to comply with the federal Real ID Act.

In spite of the hysterical warning contained in their letter, the Obama administration wisely decided to do for a third time what the Bush administration was forced to do the first time when many state governments simply refused to comply with the act’s unconstitutional requirements – extend the deadline again.

Anticipating that the Obama administration would again back down to avoid conflict with the states, the letter asserted that the recent arrest of a terrorist suspect in Texas, “..underscores the importance of the immediate implementation of REAL ID. Any further extension of REAL ID threatens the security of the United States. We cannot understand how you could even contemplate a further delay – a delay that places American lives at risk.”

States facing a federal deadline in May to launch a controversial program to tighten security requirements for driver’s licenses got another reprieve Friday when the Department of Homeland Security delayed for the third time enactment of the 2005 law by 21 months to January 2013.

Homeland Security officials said the deadline was extended because most states would not be able to meet all the federal requirements of the so-called Real ID Act by May 11, partly because of the economic downturn and uncertainty about congressional action on a proposal to modify the law.

The regulations laid out in the law — a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the 2001 terror attacks — creates a national security standard for state-issued identification cards and driver’s licenses to be used for federal purposes, like boarding a plane or entering federal buildings such as a courthouse.

The law aims to prevent terrorists from obtaining valid driver’s licenses and ID cards. But the Bush administration delayed the program’s original May 2008 compliance deadline amid claims that it was an unfunded federal mandate that would cause major disruptions in air travel and trample on Americans’ privacy rights. The program is estimated to cost $11 billion over five years.

Read the rest.

by Lesley Swann, Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center

Pushing back against the unconstitutional overreach of the federal health care legislation is priority number one for many liberty and tea party groups in the Great State of Tennessee. Many ideas have been floated by various groups throughout the country as to the best means of revoking the federal health care legislation. Several interesting ideas have been proposed, among them are federal lawsuits, interstate compacts, and state nullification.

When one takes a critical look at these options, it becomes clear that all three of these options boil down to a simple question. Do we ask permission from the federal government to undo Obamacare or simply undo it?

Federal Lawsuits: Asking Permission from the Federal Courts to Exercise Our Constitutional Rights

A point to be made with regards to lawsuits is that they will be pursued in FEDERAL courts. We will be asking the federal government to police itself, which it is most likely unwilling and, quite frankly, unfit to do. The judges in these courts are appointed by and employed by the federal government, draw a federal paycheck, and will most likely be unwilling to “bit the hand that feeds them” as it were. The federal court system has proven time and again that it most likely will rule on the side of expanding the role of the federal government, as it is a part of the vast federal bureaucracy whose primary concern is perpetuating itself.

by Thomas E. Woods, LewRockwell.com

Over the past few years, but especially during the past several months, there has been an extraordinary revival of interest in Thomas Jefferson’s idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. According to Jefferson, if the federal government were to monopolize constitutional interpretation, it would of course interpret the Constitution in its own favor and consistently uncover previously unknown reservoirs of additional federal power. Only a fool would consent to such a system, thought Jefferson, and the peoples of the states were not fools.

Needless to say, nullification is nowhere to be found on the three-by-five card on which our betters have written out the range of allowable opinion, so it has been greeted with the usual hysteria from predictable quarters.

The latest, and to my mind most laughable, example comes from Sean Wilentz, a history professor at Princeton, writing in The New Republic. The subtitle of Professor Wilentz’s article “The Essence of Anarchy” is “America’s long, sordid affair with nullification.” What Professor Wilentz omits in his alleged history of that “long, sordid affair” could fill an entire book, and indeed just weeks ago I announced the impending release of my own book on precisely this subject. (Nullification will cover the origins and theory of nullification, its forgotten nineteenth-century history, modern applications of the idea, and much else.) For now I’ll note the New England states that appealed to nullification (or interposition) against President Jefferson’s embargo, against what they considered the unconstitutional calling up of the New England militia during the war of 1812, against the use of military conscription, and against a law providing for the enlistment of minors.

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who has earned a “Freedom Index” rating of 90 percent in the current Congress to date, has introduced a bill in the House to repeal ObamaCare. In her press release, Bachmann reminded her constituents that “the government already owns or controls about one-third of U.S. economic activity through the takeover of General Motors, the bankruptcy reorganizations of Chrysler, the partial ownership of two of the country’s largest banks in Bank of America and Citigroup, and the seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as AIG. Taken all together, [with ObamaCare] we’re looking at half of the American economy in the grip of the federal government.” Bachmann said that it “will do nothing to spur economic growth … [but] will serve only as an obstacle to actual recovery and smother the spirit of innovation and freedoms that made this country great.”

Her bill is simplicity itself:

A Bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section I: Repeal of PPACA. Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

The Weekly Standard’s early April issue agrees with Bachmann:

Read the rest.

If you are tired of our nation’s year-long health care debate and you were hoping that the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care bill would settle anything, then Politico has some bad news for you: the real fight is just getting started. Starting today, a coalition of leftist groups will sink millions of dollars into television advertising and astroturf events selling the plan to the American people. But as a Washington Post poll conducted after passage last week shows, the Obama administration and their leftist allies face a steep climb.

The top line numbers are bad but not daunting for the pro-Obamacare forces: 50% of Americans oppose the changes in the new law while 46% support them. But the numbers also show that most Americans believe the new law will cause “the overall health care system in this country” to get worse, “the quality of the health care you receive” to get worse, and “your health insurance coverage” to get worse. The poll also shows that most Americans believe the law will weaken Medicare and that there is “too much government involvement in the nation’s health care system.” And strong majorities of Americans believe Obamacare will increase the federal budget deficit (65%), increase “your health care costs” (55%), and increase “overall costs of health care in this country” (60%). The American people are right on all counts. And if the events of last week are any indication, these beliefs will only harden over time.

Nullification is the talk of the day, especially as it regards the federal health care law. Many states’ legislatures are offering and passing legislation and resolutions to nullify the health care law on the basis it exceeds the authority of Congress. This is a step in the right direction. However, unless specific provisions are in place to guide and protect the citizen, nullification might prove pointless.

Unless a citizen produces proof of coverage under the federal mandate, he or she will be taxed as a penalty for failure to buy a federally-approved insurance policy. In states where nullification efforts have passed, most instances will leave the citizen in a state of conflict.

Fellow Americans,

Late last night, in a narrow and partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of social legislation in over seven decades. It did so in the face of overwhelming and principled opposition from the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government. They understand that this new law will accelerate Washington’s intrusion into our most personal and private decisions.

This is why opposition to this bill will only grow. Supporters of this bill argue that popular hostility will recede upon its passage. But, rather than cementing our descent into a European-style welfare state, last night’s passage of Obamacare is best seen as a historic turning point, a true catalyst for real change.

Idaho on Wednesday became the first state to pass a law saying no thanks to part of President Obama’s health care proposal.

The Idaho Health Care Freedom Act says in part, “every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.”

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, a Republican, said Wednesday he signed it because he believes any health care laws should ensure people are “treated as an individual, rather than as an amorphous mass whose only purpose in this world is to obey federal mandates.”

Several other states may follow suit.

Read the rest.