In the words of our President: “Let me be clear,” Missouri’s Prop C represents a victory for individual freedom, not “states’ rights.”

I am not sure why I have to keep repeating this, but there is NO SUCH THING AS STATES’ RIGHTS!  And people that use that term, or the term “nullification,” do not help our cause.

States have powers, and while those powers diminish in the face of the progressive-statist attack upon our Constitution, powers run contrary to individual rights.  So let me break it down:

1) Prop C places a duty on the state of Missouri to defend its citizens from the IRS enforced individual mandate.

2) Prop C denies the federal government state resources to enforce the individual mandate.

Anyone with an ounce of constitutional knowledge knows that neither of those aspects of Prop C conflict directly with the Supremacy Clause. (more…)

Send lawyers, guns and money…the sh%$ has hit the fan!

Seriously!  Justice Thomas opened a whole new chapter in constitutional jurisprudence with his concurring opinion regarding the 14th Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause.

Part II deals with Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago. Part I dealt with the plurality decision written by Justice Alito, and the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer, and is relevant to a discussion on the doctrine of incorporation.  Part III will address Justice Scalia’s concurrence directed at Justice Stevens’ dissent.

Let me preface this article by saying Justice Thomas is my favorite Supreme Court Justice.  Progressives often ridicule him for being “silent,” but why should he bother asking attorneys questions when their arguments focus on SCOTUS swing-vote, Justice Kennedy.  His textual approach to interpreting the Constitution makes the most sense.  While originalism and textualism both seek the original meaning of a statute or provision of the Constitution, originalism seeks the intent of the authors, where textualism focuses on the contemporary meaning of the text.  Primary sources on the intent of authors leads to a cogent argument, but primary sources on the meanings of words promotes a sound argument (and if you never learned logic then you have some studying to do; progressive arguments are rife with fallacies). (more…)

Repealing Obamacare via Article V is a means of last resort, or rather a threat to the national bureaucratic government should those in Washington not jump on board.  In the meantime, states, those individual laboratories of liberty, are attempting a number of remedies.

States have filed lawsuits, but my legal background makes me wary of relying on the judicial branch to make the ultimate decisions on policy.  Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate arbiter in conflicts involving the Constitution, but that does not guarantee that correct decisions will result.  So first we will examine the legislative solutions.

Many states across the country are either introducing laws or revising constitutions to protect Americans from the tyranny of Obamacare.  The progress of these Health Care Freedom Acts or Amendments are being tracked by various groups.  Most of this legislation is fairly simple to read and understand.  Basically, states are refusing to enforce or enact Obamacare, which is perfectly reasonable under the present legal understanding of federalism.  The national government cannot force states to enforce unfunded federal law.  A perfect example of this is the increasing decriminalization of marijuana in communities across America.  Local police are handing out tickets (much better for revenue than throwing people in jail). (more…)