What’s wrong with states’ rights?

Audrey Pietrucha
Bennington Banner
June 19, 2010

First there were “Truthers” andthen “Birthers,” and now there are “Tenthers.” To be accurate, the “Tenthers” actually came first, since this newly coined term (which is supposed to denote a “fringe” position and is therefore derogatory) refers to those who believe the 10th Amendment to the Constitution actually means what it says, that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

By this definition, today’s “Tenthers” may consider themselves in good company since we can assume many, if not all, of the founders themselves agreed with this concept.

The history of the “Tenthers” dates back to 1789, when the Constitution was being considered for ratification throughout the former colonies. Though the enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution seemed concise enough to limit federal power, Americans were still wary of government’s tendency to grow and liberty to yield.

This concern was a central theme at the state ratifying conventions and as a compromise the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791. Amendments IX and X briefly encapsulated the two-fold theory of the Constitution: that its purpose was to protect our natural rights, which are not granted by government but are inherent by virtue of our humanity; and, in keeping with this idea, the powers of the national government are limited by the Constitution to only those

enumerated therein.
Among the early "Tenthers" was Thomas Jefferson, who, while considering the constitutionality of a national bank in 1791, quoted the tenth amendment verbatim: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people,'" Jefferson said, then declared prophetically: "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition."

This idea of limited federal authority is a cornerstone of federalism, a governing philosophy which James Madison, principle author of the Constitution, helped develop.

"The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined," he said. "Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."

The powers of the federal government today can hardly be called "few and defined." Far too much of our news and our lives seem to revolve around Washington, D.C. With nearly 2 million civilian employees the federal government is the nation's largest employer after the Postal Service, itself a semi-independent government agency.

Many federal agencies and departments -- Health and Human Services, Education, Housing -- do not even come close to being required under Constitutional authority. Most scholars trace this power grab to the 1930s and the Roosevelt administration, when the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce was suddenly interpreted to mean Congress could regulate anything and everything. With this decision the Supreme Court essentially declared "No holds barred!"

But finally the states are starting to fight back against this encroachment on their rights to create a governing atmosphere in accordance with the will and the character of their residents. As of today more than 20 states have either introduced, passed or signed non-binding resolutions or binding legislation which basically warns the federal government to "cease and desist" from any and all activities outside the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

For the states' declarations of sovereignty to have any teeth, however, they must be willing to exercise the principle of nullification with regards to federal laws. Through nullification a state declares a federal law null and void within that state's boundaries. There are currently nullifications efforts underway against such diverse federal laws as those concerning Real ID, firearms, medical marijuana, health care and more.

Why is the reemergence of states' right an important step on the road toward restoring liberty? State governments, though still powerful, are in theory closer to and thus more responsive to their citizens. Also, allowing states to create varied and diverse societies within the larger society of the United States allows people to choose the one that best answers their desires and needs. In a society where choice is abundant, from the shelves of our local food stores to the multitude of apps for our iPhones, can we really tolerate a government that comes in only one size -- XXL?

Our Future In Chains: The For-Profit Debtors’ Prison System

Michael Edwards
Activist Post
June 18, 2010

History shows that terror and slavery have always had a close relationship with debt.

Debtors’ prisons have a sordid history that was thought to be best left behind in Medieval Europe and in Charles Dickens’ fictionalized accounts of the 19th-century hellholes of Victorian England. America was not to be outdone, debtors’ prisons were widespread in the United States as well, and stories of the conditions in New York’s debtors’ prisons could make one question if repayment of debts was really the purpose; violent criminals were much better clothed and fed. In fact, history shows that terror and slavery have always had a close relationship with debt, and it follows a path from the Romans right through to 17th century England, and into America from English common law. However, America chose to abolish her debtors’ prisons a full 36 years before England; first in New York in 1831, and by 1833 the rest of the America had followed.(1)

Now, debtors’ prisons seem to be making a comeback in America. A recent article in the Star Tribune in Minnesota titled, “In jail for being in debt,” exposes the growing number of citizens going to jail at the behest of banks and a welcoming judicial system. They write:

“It’s not a crime to owe money, and debtors’ prisons were abolished in the United States in the 19th century. But people are routinely being thrown in jail for failing to pay debts. In Minnesota, which has some of the most creditor-friendly laws in the country, the use of arrest warrants against debtors has jumped 60 percent over the past four years, with 845 cases in 2009, a Star Tribune analysis of state court data has found.”

In our modern era of debt servitude, a PR Push has been designed to reintroduce a serious discussion of debtors’ prisons as a sound solution. What goes beyond alarming is that the full-fledged return of debtors’ prisons might be seen as both appropriately terrifying, as well as a profitable investment opportunity and politically sound decision to be made by state governments struggling with their own looming bankruptcies, and a Federal government struggling politically with the concept of a jobless recovery that is not materializing.

A de facto debtors’ prison has already been largely accepted in the case of “deadbeat” parents when a failure to pay child support puts them in civil contempt of court. It is this civil contempt charge that is now beginning to take on an expanded definition to include those who owe for much smaller infractions. When a court order to pay a debt is issued and ignored, it then qualifies as a civil contempt of court. At that point, the judge becomes a literal dictator with the ability to imprison a person indefinitely for the violation. The Constitution explicitly prohibits incarceration for failure to pay debts, but it is the violation of a court order that gives judges free rein to impose draconian punishments. In this way, an end-run around the Constitution can become frighteningly commonplace.(2)

America already has a record-high ratio of people in prison, with no signs of the trend reversing as private corporations like Wackenhut Corporation, referred to as a “Free Market in Human Misery,” have long been enlisted to turn government directives into shareholder profit. One might even deign to call it blatant fascism in its purest form, as government legislation leads offenders directly into private company coffers. The prison-industrial complex has already capitalized on government actions like The War on Drugs. A prime example is how The California Correctional Peace Officers Association helped fuel the prison-building boom as a cozy relationship was established on Capitol Hill through influence peddling.(3)

Profiting from the suffering of the poor while bailouts and bonuses await the over-leveraged banksters, car companies, and state governments, sets up a prison-industrial complex with a class warfare component that is the domestic mirror of the military-industrial complex sent abroad. This domestic prison system seems to be the only industry left to build upon, and it is here that things become truly frightening. For the federally-owned prison system complex, Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR), more incarceration means a growing supply of cheap labor and a skewing of unemployment numbers, as these inmates are often doing jobs they couldn’t even find if they were job hunting on the outside. But it is the private prison system, with its web fully woven throughout the U.S. government, that stands to profit the most from the return of debtors’ admission.(4)

The largest private prison conglomerate in the U.S. is Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which controls more than 47% of all private prison and jail beds nationwide and is able to produce a 13-15% return annually on new real estate investments. Wackenhut (now subsumed into G4S, the largest security company in the world) was of course started by an FBI agent, George Wackenhut, who is famous for developing millions of dossiers on America’s “potential subversives” in the sixties, and was exposed as being an integral player within the shadow CIA.(5)

These major security conglomerates are at the top of a growing pyramid of for-profit, international detention center operators that has Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs simply fawning over the solid, long-term investment potential. Similar to war, when there is a profit to be made off of incarceration, only more incarceration can be expected to follow. The U.S. government certainly seems to be working hard to ensure that the numbers of poor continue to increase, as they are well aware that that programs designed to help the downtrodden are an abject failure every time. Furthermore, the massive government debts that must be repaid directly into the hands of the Federal Reserve-led banking cabal must lead us to an inescapable conclusion: More money is to be made from slavery in the United States, then from freedom.

FCC Moves to Regulate Internet

Matt Cover
CNS News
Friday, June 18th, 2010

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to begin the formal process of bringing the Internet under greater federal control – a move sought by both President Barack Obama and FCC Chairnman Julius Genachowski.

This step comes after the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April rebuked the FCC in its attempt to enforce a controversial regulatory doctrine called Net Neutrality, which would allow the government to prevent private Internet providers from deciding which applications to allow on their networks.

The court said that the FCC did not have the authority to prevent Comcast, specifically, from blocking certain peer-to-peer Web sites.

The FCC is now trying to reclassify the Internet to broaden its authority over the Web. Currently, the FCC only has “ancillary” authority, meaning it can regulate Internet access only in the process of regulating another service that it has direct authority over, such as television or cable.

The 3-2 party-line vote on Thursday at the FCC began the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service – its current classification. This is necessary because, as an information service, the government has little power to regulate Internet networks.

Mexican-Flag Waving Lakers Fans Riot In L.A.

The Sun
Friday, June 18th, 2010

VIOLENT riots broke out in Los Angeles following the LA Lakers’ championship-clinching win over the Boston Celtics in the NBA finals.

The trouble began shortly after the Lakers claimed their 83-79 victory over their rivals last night at the Staples Centre in LA.

LAPD officers clashed with crowds in streets surrounding the stadium, with rowdy fans smashing windows, starting fires and attacking passing motorists.

At least one civilian was badly beaten and a police officer suffered a broken nose in street fights. A cyclist was also hit by a patrol car attending the crisis.

Police fired non-lethal rounds to disperse mobs of troublemakers, as a cab was set alight and two newspaper stands ripped apart.

Obama Plans To Sneak Through Carbon Tax By Stealth

Job killing, economy wrecking, middle class destroying consumption tax to be added in lame duck session after November elections

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, June 18, 2010

President Obama is planning to sneak through his job-killing, economy wrecking carbon tax by stealth according to the Washington Post, by passing a weakened bill and then adding in cap and trade provisions after the heat is off following the November elections.

Described as the “lame duck climate strategy,” Obama is planning to secure enough votes in the Senate to pass a weakened energy bill and then drag out the conference long enough to ensure the stronger provisions contained in the original House version are added “after lawmakers have faced voters in November, thereby cushioning the vote’s political impact.”

“Several sources familiar with the administration’s thinking confirmed it has started pressing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to bring up a slimmed-down energy and climate bill next month. Such a measure would pass more easily than a comprehensive climate bill, and could still be negotiated with the broader bill the House passed a year ago,” reports the Washington Post.

Knowing that the “energy bill” represents nothing less than another massive plunder of the American taxpayer and is widely unpopular, Senators will only stab their constituents in the back and vote for the more nightmarish aspects of the legislation, including a tax on the very substance they exhale, after they have secured their seats in November.

As we highlighted last week, plans to impose a carbon tax on American citizens appeared to fade after Republican Senator Lindsey Graham shockingly reversed his views on climate change, telling a press conference that the science behind man-made global warming is in question and those pushing it are alarmists who have oversold the problem.

“The Senate is expected to try and push a watered down bill with the hope of moving towards a carbon tax later on,” we reported on June 10, which is exactly the approach now being adopted by Obama.

The elite are still desperate to impose a consumption tax on Americans as part of the move towards a “post-industrial revolution” and the kind of nightmare “green economy” that has left Spain with a 20 per cent unemployment rate. In a so-called green economy, over 2.2 jobs are lost for every “green job” created.

The EPA has been busy floating propaganda about how Obama’s cap and trade legislation would cost Americans an average of $79 to $146 per year. In reality, as we have documented, the stronger provisions of the bill would see around $2.9 trillion shaved off the economy by the year 2050 if enacted. The legislation would also reduce GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.

A carbon tax would impact almost every aspect of Americans’ lives, from higher gas prices, to soaring utility bills, to exorbitant excesses related to the “energy efficiency” of their homes. It would be enforced by an army of environmental regulators and green police poking their noses into the private affairs of citizens.

The government has aggressively exploited the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to manufacture an artificial urgency in an effort to speed the passage of cap and trade, an agenda firmly supported by the transnational oil corporations Obama is claiming to be reigning in. British Petroleum is one of the founding members of the cap and trade lobby, and has consistently “lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels.”

Yesterday, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt invoked the oil spill disaster to justify passage of the carbon tax bill.

“The tragedy in the gulf underscores the need to move quickly, and the president is committed to finding the votes for comprehensive energy legislation this year,” said LaBolt.

Obama himself even went to the extreme of comparing the oil spill to 9/11, proving that he is perfectly willing to exploit the horror of nearly 3,000 dead Americans in a completely unrelated event nine years ago to underhandedly push his political agenda.

$7-a-gallon gas?

BEN LIEBERMAN
NY Post
Friday, June 18, 2010

President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.

That’s a Harvard University study’s estimate of the per-gallon price of the president’s global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.

So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?

Good question, because such measures wouldn’t do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak.

The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s now-famous words, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

That sure was true of global-warming policy, and especially the cap-and-trade bill. Many observers thought the measure, introduced last year in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), was dead: The American people didn’t seem to think that the so-called global-warming crisis justified a price-hiking, job-killing, economy-crushing redesign of our energy supply amid a fragile recovery. Passing another major piece of legislation, one every bit as unpopular as ObamaCare, appeared unlikely in an election year

Ten Stories In The News That The BP Oil Spill Is Overshadowing

Corporate media does it’s best to keep you uninformed

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Jun 18th, 2010

The mainstream media is running a 24 hour news cycle focusing purely on the BP oil spill, a disaster, as we have shown, that is being intentionally hyped in order to sell cap and trade legislation and moves to nationalize big business.

In the wake of this, big important news stories are being overlooked. Here are just some of the stories, in no particular order, that you should be hearing on the nightly news, but of course, are not.

1. Israeli nuclear submarines positioned close to Iran:

Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.

The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.

The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.

2. Iran war propaganda:

US intelligence has shown Iran could launch an attack against Europe with “scores or hundreds” of missiles, prompting major changes to US missile defenses, Pentagon chief Robert Gates said on Thursday.

The anti-Iran rhetoric has amplified following the revelation that many Bilderberg members, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, are now in favor of U.S. air strikes on Iran and are “leaning towards war,”.

“Some of them in Europe are saying no we shouldn’t do it but most of them are in favor of American air strikes on Iran,” Bilderberg sluth Jim Tucker relayed from the recent meeting in Spain. “They’re tilting heavily towards green lighting a U.S. attack on Iran.”

3. The continuing economic slide:

The greatest bankster heist in history and the looming greatest depression rumbles on.

Gold has hit record highs as the dollar slumps and the Euro continues to face complete collapse. Unemployment figures in the U.S. are through the roof and U.S. consumer prices posted their largest fall in nearly 1-1/2 years in May.

Rumours in Europe persist regarding an impending bailout for spain, while Russia says it is ready to found a “new economic world order“.

4. FCC ready to restrict the Internet:

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

5. Obama/Blagojevich story

As the Blagojevich trial continues and important details emerge, linking Obama to possible political corruption, Federal prosecutors are seeking a gag order to keep the ex-Governor and his lawyers from making public comments.

6. UN small arms treaty

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced that the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Congressman Paul Broun warns that, “With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.” Broun characterizes the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty as “nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.”

The treaty would force national governments to acquiesce to a global gun registry, while strengthening licensing procedures so as to make it almost impossible for a citizen to legally purchase a gun. It would also ban the private sale of semi-automatic weapons and ultimately lead to the confiscation and destruction of all “unauthorized” firearms owned by citizens.

By encapsulating the gun grab within a treaty, the Obama administration could claim that no Senate approval is needed to authorize any such move against the right to bear arms – although whether a treaty trumps the Constitution is a very murky area of debate.

7. Mexicans riot in LA/Land given over to Mexico

Violent scenes following the LA Lakers’ championship-clinching win over the Boston Celtics in the NBA finals saw angry mobs smashing their way through the streets waving Mexican flags as they went.

Meanwhile, a massive stretch of Arizona has become effectively off limits to Americans, Prompting questions over whether the Obama administration is giving a major strip of the south-west back to Mexico.

8. Obama Plans To Sneak Through Carbon Tax By Stealth

President Obama is planning to sneak through his job-killing, economy wrecking carbon tax by stealth according to the Washington Post, by passing a weakened bill and then adding in cap and trade provisions after the heat is off following the November elections.

Described as the “lame duck climate strategy,” Obama is planning to secure enough votes in the Senate to pass a weakened energy bill and then drag out the conference long enough to ensure the stronger provisions contained in the original House version are added “after lawmakers have faced voters in November, thereby cushioning the vote’s political impact.”

9. Afghanistan Mineral Riches Story Is War Propaganda

News that the U.S. has suddenly discovered $1 trillion-worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan, and descriptions of the bounty as a “game changer” by the corporate media, represent nothing more than crude war propaganda designed to reinvigorate public support for a failing and ever more pointless occupation.

The “newly discovered” riches have been known about since the 1970s and further revelations indicate that the Pentagon report cited by the New York Times as their source for the story did not even mention the untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan.

10. Free Speech Gag Bill Moving in House

H.R. 5175, The so-called DISCLOSE Act would severely limit the ability of political groups to communicate to their members and the general public.

Politico reports that , the NRA bargained for an exemption for itself and other large, established groups while trampling the rights of private citizens, new political groups, like Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and other small organizations.

As John Bresnahan reports, “The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations… The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources.