Search This Blog

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Hooray For Starbucks

Hooray For Starbucks
By Chuck Baldwin
March 2, 2010

The major news media was replete with reports over the weekend that the coffee company, Starbucks, “has no problem with customers packing heat while placing their orders.”

“The coffee giant says it won’t take issue with gun owners who take advantage of ‘open carry’ laws and bring firearms into their restaurant.” (Source: NBC News)

To tell you the truth, I’m not sure why this is even considered “newsworthy.” Perhaps because Starbucks is a Seattle-based company that caters to the “yuppie” crowd? Maybe because the anti-gun national news media is shocked and chagrined at Starbucks’ statement? Who knows? That Starbucks would not want to alienate millions of gun owners (many of whom lawfully carry concealed weapons for personal protection) makes perfectly good sense to me. I’m sure the statement by Starbucks has little to do with guns and everything to do with business. But the fact is, there are tens of thousands of lawfully armed citizens who carry either concealed or open that have been peacefully doing business with thousands of companies around the country for years.

At last glance, 12 states allow unrestricted open carry. Those states are Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia. Plus, at least 13 other states allow restricted open carry (meaning a permit is required). I know it infuriates gun-grabbing liberals to admit this, but the facts are absolutely undeniable that an armed citizenry is far and away a more civilized and peaceful citizenry.

Founding Father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third President Thomas Jefferson rightly said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Founding Father, the man called “the father of the U.S. Constitution, and our 4th President James Madison, agreed with Jefferson. He wrote in Federalist, Number 46, “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Founding Father and author of the classic Revolution-era books, “Common Sense” and “Rights of Man,” Thomas Paine concurred. He said, “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

And should there be any doubt in the minds of sincere men regarding the advantages and appropriateness of an armed citizenry, the research of John R. Lott, Jr. is more than sufficient to dispel it. Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. His book, “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws,” is the most authoritative and thoroughly researched volume on the subject. And the title of his book is exactly what his research proves: More guns, less crime!

Lott’s analysis “is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.” Lott said carry laws reduce violent crime because “victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.” DUH!

See a University of Chicago-sponsored interview with Mr. Lott at:

Of course, liberal gun-grabbers love to instill fear into people by saying that citizens carrying guns will result in more incidents of violence. However, the facts just do not substantiate this hysteria. Even our local “mullet wrapper” recently ran a column excoriating the new law that allows concealed carry permit holders to carry his or her sidearm in national parks and forests. The basis of their diatribe? “It’s a risky change that will endanger families, hikers, those who work in these places and the park rangers themselves.”

See the rant at:

Like all gun-grabbers, however, the fear mongering of the editorial board at the Pensacola, Florida, News Journal just does not square with the facts. As Lott observes, “Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”

Accordingly, the new law allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in national parks and forests serves only to make those parks and forests safer.

I well remember being invited to speak in the rural Montana town of Hamilton last year. Somewhere between 600 and 800 people assembled at the local fairgrounds to hear me speak. It was a terrific rally with some of the most patriotic and enthusiastic people I have ever spoken to. (They have invited me back to speak, this time at the University of Montana in Missoula, to a much larger crowd of probably several thousand later this May.)

Along with the vibrancy, energy, and sheer enthusiasm of that audience I observed that scores of people were openly carrying handguns on their hips. (No telling how many people were carrying concealed. Scores more, I’m sure.) Can one imagine a would-be killer trying to open fire in that meeting? Needless to say, not only did I feel at home, I felt absolutely safe—a whole lot safer than I feel when I travel to Washington, D.C. (or any other city or State restricting gun possession), that is for sure!

Obviously, the executives at Starbucks are wiser and more discerning than a majority of newspaper editors and television news anchors. They have seen several other business establishments that have introduced corporate policies prohibiting lawfully armed citizens from entering their establishments—and they’ve seen their profits and customer bases shrink dramatically! They’ve also, no doubt, seen what happened in Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a madman crashed his vehicle into the restaurant and began shooting patrons at will. The total carnage on that horrific day back in 1991 resulted in 23 people dead and 20 more wounded, and the killer eventually killing himself. Some 80 people were in the restaurant when the shooting occurred, but Texas did not have a concealed carry law at the time, so no one was armed and able to fight back.

At this point, I strongly urge readers to watch the eyewitness testimony of former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp—whose parents were killed in the Luby’s Cafeteria rampage—given before the US Congress.

See her testimony at:

Therefore, the sadness and chagrin of liberal gun-grabbers notwithstanding, I say, “Hooray for Starbucks!” And I don’t even like their coffee. Maybe I’ll give them another chance.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
© Chuck Baldwin 



NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com


Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit

Friday, March 5, 2010

The Mengele Health Care Games Continue

The Mengele Health Care Games Continue
By Laurie Roth
February 25th, 2010

So far, Obama and congress get no medal for brilliant health care service. They do however get a few gold medals for attempting and planning to control the largest part of our economy and shredding our constitution and freedom.  Now, Obama has been pushing his new, raised from the dead version of a health care bill.  Naturally, he and the members of congress are consulting, ‘reconciling’ and having 6 hour summits.  You know, they are talking and trying to show respect now to House and Senate Republicans.  Manipulation, kiss up, pay offs and distortion are happening everywhere.  Unfortunately it appears that their Lazarus is raising from the dead again.  It will know doubt be a bastardized but twin like version of the Senate Health bill from what we hear now.

I believe this recent talk with the Republicans by Obama was just to have a strategy to assign blame to if something doesn’t pass or something different passes and the public continues to turn against Obama and his policies.  Somehow Bush and the Republicans will be to blame for it all, then behind them the racist birthers and Tea Party people.

I predict the large majority, which is growing every day now, will continue to turn against Obama if he and congress continue to ignore Americans who simply do not want any form of this health care bill.  As it is now, according to a recent CNN poll,  only 25% want the Dems to pass their health care bills!  What about that does Obama, Reid and Pelosi not hear???

So far with all these anointed conversations going on nothing has really changed with the health care bill they are pushing now.  It still would fund and force the tax payers to pay for abortions (murder).  It would still force everyone to have health insurance or else major fines or worse.  It still leaves manipulative language in allowing illegal aliens to get health care.  It still would force end of life counseling for our seniors.  Finally, it would have controlling access to bank accounts, order and manipulate just what health care you get and how long you wait for it, and what of your offered and controlled health care is even paid for by your insurer or Government.

Watch, if Obama and the congress get their way, assisted suicide and abortion would be paid for by insurance but many expensive and needed treatments NOT paid, affecting, no, killing our parents and seniors.  Certainly manipulating and pressuring them to consider the paid for….assisted suicide.

I have something to say.  DR. MENGELE CAN GO STRAIGHT BACK TO HELL SO CAN THIS ADMINISTRATION.

Real health care is something that the American people know can be managed and improved from the private sector and involves carrying for ALL, offering quality and needed care in a timely matter.  Real health care doesn’t kill young and old and set people up to feel guilty for even being a live.  If you want hideous lines, controlled health care, and a program this country cannot afford……by all means support Obama and congress with health care.



This entry was posted on Thursday, February 25th, 2010 at 10:57 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.


Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Thursday, March 4, 2010

Is America Becoming A Police State?

Is America Becoming A Police State?
By Chuck Baldwin
February 26, 2010

There is a classic story about how no one had been able to capture a herd of wild hogs that was rooting up crops from numerous farms. It got so bad that rewards had been posted for anyone clever enough to corral the critters. But even this resulted in only limited success.

One day a stranger (who was a wily old trapper) came into town and—entering the general store—ordered a truckload of fence posts and fencing, along with some feed. When asked what he was going to use it for, he said, “I’m going to get those wild hogs y’all are having trouble with.” Of course, everyone in the store laughed at the overconfident stranger. A few weeks later, however, the stranger rode into town with the back of his truck tightly packed with the smelly swine.

When asked how he was able to accomplish what no one else had been able to do, the old trapper replied, “Simple. I started putting the feed out in a small clearing and the hogs began freely eating the feed. It didn’t take long and they were there every day. Then I put up the fence posts, but with no fencing. At first the hogs were a little skittish, but it wasn’t long and they ignored the posts. Then I began putting the fence up, but I left the gate off. Again, the hogs were skittish at first, but soon realized they could come and go freely, and before long, they were devouring the free food with a vengeance. Then, one day when the hogs were aggressively consuming the vittles, I slammed the gate closed.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what the old trapper did to the wild hogs is exactly what our soon-to-be oppressors are doing to us! What is worse, most Americans seem about as oblivious to the whole thing as that bunch of pigs. For anyone who is paying attention, however, the signs of growing enslavement are everywhere.

Inside my web site is a link page that is constantly updated with pertinent information relating to how America is quickly being turned into Huxley’s Brave New World. I invite readers to regularly visit this page. It is entitled “The Emerging Police State.”

See the web page at:

Here is a sampling of just this year’s relevant headlines to date:

Ø     “Police Push For Warrantless Searches Of Cell Phones” (CNET News)
Ø     “During The Olympics, The Feds Will Be Reading Your Tweets—And The Blotter” (ABC News)
Ø     “Feds Push For Tracking Cell Phones” (CNET News)
Ø     “Troops Randomly Patrol Streets In Pittsburgh, Respond To ‘Domestic Disputes’” (PrisonPlanet.com)
Ø     “Residents Fumed Over Weekend Alcohol, Firearm Ban” (WXII-12 TV News, Winston-Salem, North Carolina)
Ø     “Ron Paul Warns Of Social Unrest And Martial Law” (Texas Congressman Ron Paul)
Ø     “FBI Broke Law For Years In Phone Record Searches” (The Washington Post)
Ø     “Top Obama Czar: Infiltrate All ‘Conspiracy Theorists’” (World Net Daily)
Ø     “President Gives Foreign Cops Power Over Americans” (Retired lawman Jim Kouri)

Those are just some of the headlines from 2010 so far. Check out the headlines from 2009 and backward to discover that the list of relevant news stories is extensive. And as you peruse those news stories, keep reminding yourself about what you are actually seeing: you are watching the old trapper put the fence around the hog feed.

Again, the web page address is:

Only a blind or deliberately naïve man cannot see that America—the once-proud “land of the free”—is being systematically turned into a twenty-first century police state. Good grief!  The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom notes that America is not even listed among the ”free” countries of the earth. We are ranked in the second tier, of “mostly free” countries. Beyond that, the Heritage index ranks the US as only the 8th freest nation on the planet.

And both the Republican and Democrat parties in Washington, D.C., are equally culpable for America’s slide into socialism and oppression. And so are many local and State leaders—including political, business, and law enforcement leaders. Suffice it to say that most big city governments have become almost totalitarian. Government buildings—even local ones—are sealed fortresses, not unlike the old palace-forts of antiquity. In big and not-so-big cities, cameras monitor virtually everything we do. Even here in my hometown of Pensacola, Florida, a nearby city (Gulf Breeze) has recently installed traffic cameras, which issue automated tickets for red light runners. (How unconstitutional can one get? Surely someone will aggressively challenge the legality of these cameras in court!) What is worse is that many residents and local authorities see nothing wrong with it. These people are behaving just like those wild hogs that nonchalantly ate their food while the fence was being built all around them.

In the name of “security” or “safety” or “protection,” Americans are surrendering their liberties. Ladies and gentlemen, face it: freedom is risky business! If our Founding Fathers had wanted security or safety, they would have stayed in Europe—or at least remained a compliant colony of the Crown. So, if one wants government enslavement in twenty-first century America, one should move back to Europe—or better yet, to Red China or North Korea!

Instead of demanding that government take care of us, we should be demanding that government get out of our wallets and off our backs, and let us live free, as our Creator intended we live! But how can we do that when we constantly clamor for more and more government handouts and benefits? By demanding welfare checks, food stamps, government-assisted housing and medicine, etc., Americans are putting the shackles around their own throats. Even churches and religious institutions are gorging themselves at the government teat. America doesn’t need to worry about terrorist attacks from Baghdad or Tehran as much as we should worry about the terrorism from Big Brother—brought about with our own approbation—right here at home.

When will we say, “That’s enough”? When will we truly rise up against this out-of-control federal monstrosity? When will we demand that government once again be our servant and not our master? When will we begin to see through these Big Government politicians from both major parties that are selling our posterity into tyranny for their own selfish pursuits? When will we wake up to what both Big Business and Big Religion are doing to us? Why do we have to shop at the “Super Center”? Why do we have to worship at the “Mega-Church”? Why do we have to believe everything ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN—and yes, FOX News—tell us? Why do we have to keep reelecting these career politicians? And when we do replace them, why do we have to replace one dirty, rotten scoundrel with another dirty, rotten scoundrel?

When will we recognize that the Department of Homeland Security would be more properly named the Department of Homeland Enslavement? When are we going to wake up to the fact that the Patriot Act is nothing but a tool of the federal government to usurp constitutionally protected liberties? When are we going to realize that the federal “war on drugs” inflicts more damage on the Bill of Rights than it does any major drug dealer? When will we get fed up with these random police checkpoints (manned by agents from virtually any and every police agency, including federal agents) going up everywhere? When will we tire of our local policemen and sheriff’s deputies more resembling military commandos than peace officers? When will we demand that our State and local officials stop begging the federal government for ”stimulus” money? In other words, when are we going to decide that we want to live in FREEDOM?

Until we Americans get serious about answering the questions above, we are only fooling ourselves when we talk about the United States being a free country. We are not free, and we are getting less free by the day. We are as those wild hogs that were first fed by—and then enslaved by—a wily trapper. When will we see it?

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

© Chuck Baldwin 



NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Myth Busting: the ‘Constitutional Expert’

Myth Busting: the ‘Constitutional Expert’
by Geoff Broughton
23. Feb, 2010

Today, public opinion is on our side.  According to a Rasmussen Reports 59% of voters believe the States should be able to ‘opt out’ of Federal Programs it does not agree with.  Compared to 47% who agreed when asked about National Health care in December.  The number jumps to 63% when asked about opting out of Federally unfunded mandates.

That is a trend in which I predict will give rise to much more attention from the opposition.  In the few articles and blogs which have surfaced so far, those who are opposed to a truly federal System as laid out by the founding fathers in our constitution, have called upon ‘constitutional experts’ to put down such silly talk of State Sovereignty, and the notion that the Tenth Amendment has any real bearing on today’s political landscape.

One op-ed that comes to mind was from the LA Times titled Constitutional objections to Obamacare don’t hold up, back in January.  Akhil Reed Amar begins his editorial by listing his credentials.

I’m no healthcare expert, but I have spent the last three decades studying the Constitution, and the current plan easily passes constitutional muster.

Now I am not here to argue with Mr Amar, in fact Rob Natelson already took on each of his points here.  My goal is to debunk the term, ‘Constitutional expert’ and have a little fun with Mr Amar’s credentials.  Lets see, 3 decades is 30 years which breaks down to 10,957(365 days times 30 plus seven for leap years).  A quick google search and I got that the entire Constitution plus amendments including the signature page is 8,114, or 8060 with out the signatures.  Which means he could have spent one day on each word and still had 2,897 days to do other things, perhaps the Declaration of Independence which is 1,457 words long.  I can only imagine the excitement in day one where they did an indepth study on the word: “We”.

Of course, I am being silly, but so is the idea of a ‘Constitutional Expert’.  Even with the formal language and preamble’s, the document is not all that complicated.  What Mr Amar has no doubt studied for the last 30 years is a ‘case law’ look at Supreme Court decisions, and how those decisions have radically redefined what was originally written by our founders.

We know that our founders studied the works of Blackstone, John Locke, Montesquieu, and Cicero and very much believed in Natural Law.  The Declaration and Constitution are filled with Natural Law precepts like unalienable rights and separation of powers.  Up until the early 1900’s the prevailing theory in jurisprudence was something known as Legal Formalism

From Wikipedia Search of Legal Formalism:

Legal formalists argue that judges and other public officials should be constrained in their interpretation of legal texts, suggesting that investing the judiciary with the power to say what the law should be, rather than confining them to expositing what the law does say, violates the separation of powers. (emphasis added)

At this time, a theory called Legal Realism began to become popular, most often connected with Oliver Wendell Holmes.  But more important to our history is a man named Roscoe Pound who believed in something called Social Jurisprudence.

From Wikipedia Search of Legal Realism:

Legal realists advance two general claims: 1) Law is indeterminate and judges, accordingly, must and do often draw on extralegal considerations to resolve the disputes before them. 2) The best answer to the question “What is (the) law?” is “Whatever judges or other relevant officials do“.(emphasis added)

Why is knowing who Roscoe Pound is so important?

From Wikipedia Search of Roscoe Pound:

In 1910 Pound became professor of law at Harvard. He was dean from 1916 to 1936 during what was called Harvard Law School’s “golden age”. He helped shape a faculty and program of legal education equipped to implement his concept of sociological jurisprudence. A large number of the law school graduates were active in formulating policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, and Pound supported many of its early measures.

This is an important point.  Either the law is what it says, or it is what a judge or other official says it is.  These two ideas cannot be comingled can they?  Our method of selecting Supreme Court Justices makes predicting the outcome of any particular case difficult.

From a Wikipedia search of the Supreme Court:

There are a number of ways that commentators and Justices of the Supreme Court have defined the Court’s role, and its jurisprudential method:

Current Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are originalists; originalism is a family of similar theories that hold that the Constitution has a fixed meaning from an authority contemporaneous with the ratification, and that it should be construed in light of that authority. Unless there is a historic and/or extremely pressing reason to interpret the Constitution differently, originalists vote as they think the Constitution as it was written in the late 18th Century would dictate.

Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter was a leading proponent of so-called judicial restraint, in that he believed that the Supreme Court should not make law (which, by invalidating or significantly altering the meaning of Congressional bills, Frankfurter felt they were), and so believers in this idea often vote not to grant cases the writ of certiorari. Associate Justice Stephen Breyergenerally advocates a quasi-purposivist approach, focusing on what the law was supposed to achieve rather than what it actually says, and measuring the possible outcomes of voting one way or another.

Other Justices have taken a more instrumentalist approach (see judicial activism), believing it is the role of the Supreme Court to reflect societal changes. They often see the Constitution as a living, changing and adaptable document; thus their ruling will be in stark contrast to originalists. Compare, for example, the differing opinions of Justices Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is a more instrumentalist justice.

Finally, there are some Justices who do not have a clear judicial philosophy, and so decide cases purely on each one’s individual merits.

So this is why any so called expert on one side of an argument can be countered with another and why I tend to reject it altogether.  Since your study of this system is bound to be prejudiced by your philosophy of law, since Constitutional law is really Case Law.

From a Wikipedia Search of Case Law:

Which is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts (called courts of first impression) which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis. These interpretations are distinguished from statutory law which are the statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies; regulatory law which are regulations established by governmental agencies based on statutes; and in some states, common law which are the generally accepted laws carried to the United States from England.

Our opponents will often be from the judicial activism approach.  But there is not a mythical high priests understanding here, no matter what the experts say. You either believe in the Constitution as written, or you believe in the Constitution as what your masters think it means today.  For me it is like choosing between Orwell’s 1984 vs or Jefferson’s writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

I want you to google 1942 Wickard v. Filburn. In a Wikipedia search on that case you find,

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congressto “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”) decided that, because Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

There is no way you can read the interstate commerce clause found in Article One Section 8 which reads ‘To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”, and come to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in 1942.  For the Courts to decide the Federal Government could control the output of a private citizen on his own property for his own use is an abomination of the Constitution and the system of Liberty it is supposed to protect.  Conservapedia goes into much more detail if you want to read more.

If you agree with me that Natural Law should be what governs a free society, then the question you have to ask yourself is: How long will you be satisfied asking the Federal Government to limit its own powers, before you accept that the answer that an inconsistent court or legislators like Pelosi or Conyers have made clear.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

John Conyers on Congress reading the Bills?

John Conyers: “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill’.  What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

The answer is the Federal Government will never limit itself. 

Quotes Supporting State Sovereignty:

Alexander Hamilton:

·        “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

·        “We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

James Madison:

·        “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”

·        “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

·        “Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Justice Scalia:

·        “This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

·        “…the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones.” 

·        “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty”

The next question will be: Do you have the political will to be called names, and be made fun of, and say no to federal monies, in order to win back true liberty and freedom for the next generation?  If so the answer is State Sovereignty, and that starts by making sure we elect people who will stand up for our rights instead of promising to “do” things for us.



Geoff Broughton [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Colorado Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit