for e-mails from the Pennsylvania state chapter of the Tenth Amendment Center.
Or, for updates from the National Tenth Amendment Center, click here or use the sign-up form in the right hand sidebar.
“White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough and other senior officials knew of the general nature of the report but decided to keep the president in the dark about the report’s finding that the IRS had targeted conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny. Carney said it was the White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler’s judgment that the matter should not be told to the president, and that she conveyed this sentiment to senior staff.”
Congressman Pat Meehan’s facebook status:
“Is there no accountability in government anymore? In all of these scandals — the IRS, Benghazi, the AP wiretapping, Fast and Furious — we hear the same thing from the government officials involved: It’s not my fault… I wasn’t in the room… I have no recollection… I missed the meeting… Not my responsibility… I wasn’t aware… I recused myself… I only learned about it when you did.
What happened to accountability? Is anyone in this administration responsible for their actions?”
How about two other people who “didn’t know” when systematic abuses took place on their watch?
“…He said the doctrine of wilful blindness was well established in the US, and was used against Jeffrey Skilling at Enron and Bernie Ebbers at WorldCom, who are both in jail today despite using the defence that the prosecution could not prove they were personally involved in the crimes…”
“Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to when an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts that would render him liable.”
“I don’t know” is unacceptable as an answer from any organization’s leaders in response to systemic abuses like the Benghazi coverup, political targeting by the IRS, Department of Justice targeting of the press, and Fast & Furious.
For discussion, do the states have a role to play to protect their citizens from targeting by the IRS?
Cross posted from TenthAmendmentCenter.Com.
Philadelphia and Boston have often traded licks over which was the real Cradle of Liberty. Boston, home to such notable rebels as Sam Adams and Paul Revere, takes credit for the Boston Tea Party and terrorizing British regulars sent to quell insurrection. Philadelphia retorts that it birthed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the real meat and potatoes of our new Republic. Of late, however, endorsers of either view are contending with a new, embarrassing contest: which city will kill liberty first?
Boston took an early lead, at least in the Police State category, as evidenced by the quick and efficient militarization of that city in pursuit of a Chechen teenager. Philadelphia, not to be outdone, gave us State Senator Anthony Williams, who on Monday attempted to douse the flame of liberty with the foul water of unlimited central government.
France Krazalkovich, who is running for a seat on the Upper Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners, introduced a Second Amendment preservation resolution to the board during their February meeting. The resolution was introduced in his capacity as a citizen and resident of the township. Mr. Krazalkovich writes that it was met with mixed response in February and that he will ask for it to be considered again tomorrow evening, March 18, 2013. Of the resolution, he says,
The Resolution would 1) Condemn federal overreach and infringement upon the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms; 2) Express support for, and urge immediate passage of PA House Bill 357; 3) Reserve the right of the Township to take measures necessary to prevent enforcement of federal acts respecting the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms; and 4) Direct the Township Manager to immediately transmit copies of the Resolution to a host of public officials including the President of the United States.
To support this resolution, you can contact Elwood Taylor, the President of the Board of Commissioners. The Board’s web site gives Mr. Taylor’s e-mail address as: firstname.lastname@example.org. Urge Mr. Taylor to bring the resolution up for a vote.
To stay informed on this and other issues, Like and get active on the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center Facebook page. Also join the Second Amendment Preservation Act of PA Facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/2ndAmendmentPA/
TO: PENNSYLVANIA VOTERS
FROM: BENJAMIN GROSS, LEGAL DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA TENTH AMENDMENT CENTER
DATE: MARCH 1, 2013
SUBJECT: HOUSE BILL 357, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PROTECTION ACT
In mid-January, State Representative Daryl Metcalfe proposed the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (HB 357) which nullifies all federal firearms laws adopted after December 31, 2012. HB 357, which provides criminal penalties for attempted enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws in Pennsylvania, amassed 69 co-sponsors in the last month.
Despite the popularity of HB 357, a number of Republican and Democratic state legislators have refused to join as cosponsors, invariably citing the Supremacy Clause for the proposition that federal laws are supreme and only federal courts can say otherwise. The Supremacy Clause is one of the more abused and misrepresented clauses in the Constitution. Only laws “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” are supreme, not any old laws passed by Congress. Critics, including those who teach constitutional law in our nation’s universities often repeat this common but nonsensical viewpoint, given that its logical conclusion makes the federal government’s discretion the only limit of its powers. No State would have ratified a Constitution wherein Congress could pass unconstitutional laws that were then upheld by its own judicial branch.
As Alexander Hamilton explained at New York’s ratifying convention (more…)
Here’s the Tenth Amendment Center’s Communications Director, Michael Maharrey and retired litigation attorney, Federalist Papers expert, and blogger, Publius Huldah – both testifying to a Tennessee Senate hearing on behalf of Tennessee’s 2nd amendment preservation act, (TN) SB250.
After the flurry of new legislation introduced in the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2013, gun owners should consider sprucing up their spring wardrobes with Tenth Amendment t-shirts and hats.
In mid-January, State Representative Daryl Metcalfe proposed the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (HB 357) which nullifies all federal firearms laws adopted after December 31, 2012. HB 357, which provides criminal penalties for attempted enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws in Pennsylvania, amassed 67 co-sponsors in the last month.
Following closely on the heels of HB 357, State Representative Matt Gabler introduced the Firearms Freedom Act (HB 475) which prevents any federal regulation of firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold within Pennsylvania’s borders. Citing the 9th and 10th amendments as valid consideration for Pennsylvania entering in the union compact in 1787, HB 475 draws a line in the sand against federal laws that are offensive to intrastate commerce and Pennsylvania and federal constitutional guarantees of gun rights. HB 475 garnered 49 cosponsors in the last three weeks.
Despite the popularity of both pending nullification bills, several Republican and Democratic state legislators have refused to join as cosponsors, invariably citing the Supremacy Clause for the proposition that federal laws are supreme and only federal courts can say otherwise.
The Supremacy Clause is one of the more abused and misrepresented clauses in the Constitution. Only laws “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” are supreme, not any old laws passed by Congress. Critics, including those who teach constitutional law in our nation’s universities often repeat this common but nonsensical viewpoint, given that its logical conclusion makes the federal government’s discretion the only limit of its powers. No State would have ratified a Constitution wherein Congress could pass unconstitutional laws that were then upheld by its own judicial branch. (more…)
Cross posted from the Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
Posted by Kelli Sladick
Representative Saylor has introduced HB 269, an Act prohibiting the expansion of Medicaid. This bill is currently in the House Committee on Health. This bill has 37 co-sponsors
HB 269 says, “Notwithstanding any other law, eligibility criteria for voluntary populations to receive medical assistance approved under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may not be expanded.”
Representative Saylor compared the promises of the federal government’s bribes of expanding Medicaid to previous bribes for special education in a press conference. Bribes from the federal government are costing Pennsylvania taxpayers an immense amount in property tax due to the special education requirements. The federal government had promised to fund 40% of special education but only lived up to fund 8%. In the video, Representative Saylor said, “The current cost, here in Pennsylvania is expected to rise to about 400 million dollars in the upcoming fiscal budget the governor will unveil tomorrow (02/05/2013). Well, it’s an important program. Most definitely. We all want to see those in great need to be taken care of. But, at some point, as you heard today, this program is truly outpacing the ability of Pennsylvania taxpayers to pay for it. One in every four, as you heard, Pennsylvanians under this program is being proposed to expand, would be enrolled under free health care pay, in this state. And the published reports the federal government had put that they will put in 100%. This goes back to promises. Promises made. Promises not kept by the federal government. This will in the end cost Pennsylvania taxpayers, well over a billion dollars a year. Starting off in the first year with a 200 million dollar increase.”
He later continued, (more…)
On January 16, 1919, the ratification of the 18th amendment was certified by the US Congress. This amendment had been ratified by 46 of 48 states and said:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment on December 5, 1933.
Before I started researching for this article, what I thought I knew about the prohibition era went something like this: The 18th amendment was passed. Organized crime took over in New York and Chicago. The mob thrived. People danced “the Charleston”. Al Capone got arrested for tax evasion. And eventually the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st. It occurred to me recently that learning more about prohibition era America might provide some useful lessons for today, so I have done some reading. I am still far from expert on the period, but what I have learned so far is absolutely fascinating.
The Tenth Amendment Center’s four step road map to nullification of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) includes 1.) Refuse to implement the state-run health care exchange; 2.) Reject the Medicaid expansion; 3.) Pass Health Care Freedom Legislation; and 4.) Full nullification of the PPACA inside the state’s borders. Here in Pennsylvania, step 1 has been accomplished and a coalition of activists are currently working to accomplish step 2.
Representative Matt Baker has now continued progress on step 3 with the introduction of HB273, the Health Care Freedom Act. This act provides for the right of the individual to purchase private health insurance and prohibits any law from compelling an individual, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care plan or system. It currently has 42 co-sponsors and it is assigned to the House Committee on Health, of which Rep. Baker is the chair. (more…)
Facts: Pennsylvania’s 1780 Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery predated the Constitution by 11 years. It predated Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation by 83 years and it predated the 13th amendment by 85 years.
Pennsylvania’s emancipation act also preceded the end of slavery by more than 230 years (and counting) in the handful of countries where slavery is still practiced today.
And, Pennsylvania’s 1780 emancipation act was implemented without triggering an internal war or rebellion.
Question: Is it really a good idea for Pennsylvanians to rely on the federal government or United Nations to protect our rights?
Trivia: The clerk of the General Assembly when Pennsylvania passed this act was none other than Thomas Paine, of “Common Sense” fame.