In Nullification: How To Resist Tyranny In The 21st Century, Thomas E. Woods Jr., explores the history of nullification in America. It’s a history that few students are taught in government schools, and one that even fewer mainstream historians are willing — or able — to discuss. In fact, Woods writes that at a scholarly debate he attended in 2003, only he and one other academic defended the Thomas Jefferson view of nullification (as espoused in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts and known as the Principles of ’98).

Woods holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and received a master’s, a Master of Philosophy and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He’s a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he edited Exploring American History: From Colonial Times to 1877 (an 11-volume encyclopedia) and is the author of 10 books.

He says that the Founders meant for the States to be checks against Federal tyranny and the 10th Amendment was put into the Constitution to reinforce the rights of States to nullify unConstitutional laws.

A commonly-used argument against nullification is the idea that the Civil War “settled” the issue. Woods argues that the Civil War had nothing to do with nullification even though the Southern States seceded based on the (correct) compact theory of the union. That theory maintains that each individual State — not a single group of united people — joined together to form the Union. Each individual State, acting in its sovereign capacity, ratified the Constitution in the months and years following its drafting in 1878.

“The very fact that the states voted separately to ratify the Constitution, and that the Constitution was not ratified by a single, consolidated vote of all individuals in the original thirteen states, is an important piece of evidence to compact theorists that the states, rather than some single American people, created the federal Union,” Woods writes.

This is not the American history that most school children learn — nor the one that most law students study. What they are taught can be called the nationalist theory which conceives of the United States as deriving from a single sovereign people rather than from an agreement among States and the residents of each State.

Woods covers the discussions that took place and essays that were written during the States’ ratifying conventions — particularly those in Virginia — that prove they understood the States maintained the right to shield their people from encroachments by the Federal government.

The idea of nullification was invoked in the Principles of ’98 by Jefferson and James Madison, and in subsequent years by a number of States over a variety of issues. And it has continued to this day.

One recent example occurred in 2005 and 2006 when 24 States nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. Opposition to the legislation came from both Republicans and Democrats — with one side opposing the unfunded mandates and the impact they would have on state finances and the other side opposing the privacy issues involved. Another example involves the medical use of marijuana, which is illegal under Federal law but allowed in 14 States.

And it’s through nullification that a number of States are resisting the institution of Obamacare’s mandates that everyone purchase health insurance.

Woods’ book comprehensively covers the history of nullification and lays out a plan whereby Americans can battle the ever-growing tyranny of the Federal government. It deals with all the arguments for and against the idea of nullification and is an excellent source for anyone wanting to learn how to stop the leviathan state.

I recommend Nullification: How To Resist Tyranny In The 21st Century to every patriot looking to resist Federal tyranny. It provides not only a good history lesson, but a legal lesson as well.

According to Paul, the last “decent audit” was done 50 years ago. In the early 1980s Paul tried to get an audit done when he was on the gold commission. Fifteen of the 17 members of the commission voted not to conduct an audit.

In recent months there have been a number of rumors about Ft. Knox, among them: that it no longer contains any real gold; That it contains only a small portion of what is claimed; and that many of the bars that are there are made of lead or some other material and only coated in gold.

“If there was no question about the gold being there, you think (the Federal Reserve) would be anxious to prove gold is there,” Paul said.

Paul has long been an advocate of sound money and has fought against the Federal Reserve. His efforts last year to get legislation passed to audit the Federal Reserve was ultimately watered down by Congress to the point of uselessness.

“I don’t think the Federal Reserve should exist — it would be best for Congress to exert their responsibilities and that is find out what they are doing,” Paul told Kitco News. “It is an ominous amount of power they have to create money out of thin air and being the reserve currency of the world and be able to finance runaway spending whether it is for welfare or warfare; it seems strange that we have been so complacent not to even look at the books. If we knew exactly what they were doing, who they were taking care of, there would be a growing momentum to reassess the whole system.”

The Federal Reserve has created bubbles and inflation and today’s dollar is worth about 2 cents compared to the 1913 dollar, Paul said.

Paul said he would like to see gold and silver legalized as currency to give people a choice of using the Government’s fiat currency or real money.

Of course, the Federal Reserve can print money to infinity which isn’t backed by anything. This makes wars possible and has led to the devaluation of the dollar and is “legal” theft of the individual by the government.

Do you support Barry Boswell's Hyper Compound interest as a good way to make your money work for you?

I am familiar with the compound interest theory but have never heard of the other.  What is your take?

Pa]]> http://www.personalliberty.com/asset-and-wealth-protection/do-you-support-barry-boswells-hyper-compound-interest-as-a-good-way-to-make-your-money-work-for-you/feed/ 0 http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/freedom-concerns/the-4th-amendment-may-it-rest-in-peace/ http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/freedom-concerns/the-4th-amendment-may-it-rest-in-peace/#comments Mon, 30 Aug 2010 03:01:46 +0000 Bob Livingston http://www.personalliberty.com/?p=16584 In Colonial America it was common for British soldiers, tax collectors and other representatives of the Crown to obtain a writ of assistance giving them the authority to enter any home, business or ship at any time of the day or night in search of contraband goods or to interrogate the residents and owners over payment of taxes or for most any other reason.

Writs of assistance were very vague search warrants and it was a simple procedure to obtain them. They could be had for any reason or no reason from the Colonial governor or from judges — all of whom held their positions at the whim of the King of England.

In 1761 James Otis Jr., the Advocate General of Massachusetts — whose job it was to defend the issuance of the writs in court — resigned his position and took the side of 63 Boston merchants in a court battle against the writs. He represented the merchants for free, and though he lost the case in a court stacked against him, he earned the title of patriot.

It was his five-hour speech in court that served “as the spark in which originated the American Revolution,” according to John Adams, who was sitting in the courtroom at the time.

“The child of independence was then and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance,” Adams said.

The issue was such an important one to the Colonists that it was mentioned as one of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence: “He (the king)… sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Since it was so important an issue to the Founding Fathers it’s not surprising that an Amendment was included in the Constitution that forbids the government from arbitrarily searching people, homes and businesses.

It was the Colonists’ experience with unreasonable searches and seizures and Otis’ speech that planted the seeds that grew into the 4th Amendment which reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4th Amendment has been under assault before in our nation’s history. And that has been chronicled in other articles on this site. But now that right, guaranteed by our Constitution, is as dead as a hammer.

The most recent major assault on the 4th Amendment came in the wake of 9/11 when President George W. Bush proposed and Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which was most unpatriotic.

In the Senate the act passed 98 to one. Democrat Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was the lone dissenter. Democrat Mary Landrieu (D-La.) did not vote.

In the House it passed 357-66 with nine not voting. Sixty-five of the dissenters were Democrats. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was the lone Republican to oppose the bill.

Without getting into specifics, the bill gives government investigators almost unlimited power to conduct wire taps, eavesdrop, access and search records and enter homes in an effort to root out those it considers terrorists. The bill was couched in a way that led Americans to believe it was to be used only in the war on terror but, like all other government powers, it has been abused and used against Americans. In fact, some Americans have been charged with terrorism-related offenses through the Act even though their “crimes” involved nothing more than making innocuous threats, taking or possessing photographs or drawing pictures.

The travesty is that Americans, for the most part, seemingly don’t care. They’ve decided that government should be allowed to do anything and everything “if it makes us safer.” In fact, many commenters on this subject on this site have said as much. So the heavy hand of government has grown bigger and stronger — as government is wont to do — and the USA PATRIOT Act has been renewed and strengthened.

In the name of safety we have ceded our right not to be searched at airports… almost without a whimper. First we accepted removing our shoes and opening our bags. Then we gave up our lotions, sanitizers and water bottles. Then we accepted being frisked and poked and prodded. Then we accepted having our bodies irradiated and naked pictures being taken and ogled at and saved in the system — in effect allowing government to assume we are all criminals with plans to blow up an airplane — all in the interest of “safety.”

But here’s what really killed the 4th Amendment. Technology and government have taken the next logical step beyond airport scanners. American Science and Engineering, Inc., one of the manufacturers of the backscatter radiation machines now being employed at airports, has made the backscatter radiation system portable.

The Z Backscatter Van™ allows law enforcement to look inside vehicles, buildings and homes just like the airport backscatter scanners allow agents from the Transportation and Security Administration to peer beneath your clothes.

AS&E’s website says the van:

“…is a low-cost, extremely maneuverable screening system built into a commercially available delivery van. The ZBV allows for immediate deployment in response to security threats, and its high throughput capability facilitates rapid inspections. The system’s unique "drive-by" capability allows one or two operators to conduct X-ray imaging of suspect vehicles and objects while the ZBV drives past.

“The ZBV can also be operated in stationary mode by parking the system and producing X-ray images of vehicles as they pass by. Screening can also be accomplished remotely while the system is parked. Remote operation allows scanning to be done safely, even in dangerous environments, while maintaining low-profile operation. The system is unobtrusive, as it maintains the outward appearance of an ordinary van.”

A company video of the van in action can be viewed here.

These vans and a more powerful, fire truck-sized version called the Mobile Search HE (high energy), are now on the roads in America. AS&E sold $242,093,000 of its backscatter imaging products in fiscal year 2010 with 63 percent of the sales in the United States, according to the company’s annual report. The company says 500 of the ZBVs have been sold.

The company’s main contractor — not surprisingly — was the Department of Defense, where the trucks were deployed in war zones. But the vans and trucks have been sold to other government entities — including states and municipalities — as well.

That means that, right now, ZBVs and Mobile Search HEs are prowling around our streets and towns looking into our cars, homes and businesses searching for something — anything — the heavy hand of government finds “suspicious.”

No longer are you secure in your “persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Government agents can peer into your car, home and business and you will never know it until they show up on your doorstep flashing a warrant based on something they saw through the walls.

And not only are you no longer secure in your home, your thoughts — or future thoughts — are being probed as well. A University of Pennsylvania professor has developed software that the developer says can predict which individuals on probation or parole are most likely to murder or be murdered.

According to ABC News, if the software proves successful it could influence sentencing recommendations and bail amounts. It is being used in Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

And, of course, we already have “hate crime” laws in which judges and prosecutors deign to know the thoughts and motives behind criminal acts — giving the impression that a heinous crime is somehow even more heinous because the person harbors some type of grudge or bias.

Folks, we have reached the totalitarian regime foreshadowed in George Orwell’s 1984, where all that we do is watched and where even our thoughts have become crimes.

“The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” — 1984, George Orwell.

No longer a thing of fiction, government has truly become Big Brother. What Orwell didn’t know is that the technology would advance to let Big Brother watch us even in darkness.

Our nation has become the Oceania of 1984, where history is changed daily, our actions are watched, our thoughts are discerned, our communities are decaying and we are in a perpetual state of war.

Buying Big Brother’s vow to keep us safe we have kicked the Constitution to the curb and if the Founders — who sacrificed so much for liberty — were alive today they would surely weep at our foolishness.

“It’s hard to get a measure like cybersecurity legislation passed on its own,” Senator Thomas Carper (D-Del.) told GovInfoSecurity.com. Carper is chairman of the Senate subcommittee with cybersecurity oversight.

Under instructions from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) are working to combine their separate bills into one that can be attached to another piece of legislation, such as the Defense Authorization Act.

While proponents say an Internet Kill Switch is needed to protect the nation’s power, water and banking grids, what it really is is a way to control the flow of information. Experts have said that the nation’s power and water grids are not connected directly to the Internet.

Lieberman let slip his real thoughts on the Internet Kill Switch in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley when he said, “Right now China — the government — can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war. We need to have the ability to do that, too.”

For more on Lieberman’s interview, go here.

And the idiot Rockefeller is no friend of the Internet either. He has said he wished the Internet had never been invented and we were back to communicating with pencil and paper.

China and other totalitarian regimes readily use their power over the Internet to deny their citizens the free flow of information. And that’s what in store for the United States if this bill comes to fruition.

The President — Democrat or Republican — can now use almost any excuse to declare a state of emergency and that would give him the excuse to shut down any and all parts of the Internet. The target of the shutdown could be sites that express dissenting views or entire sections of the country the President — or his puppet master — is displeased with.

The Senate will soon be back in Washington, D.C., for a four-week session before adjourning until the November elections. This is the window that provides the most danger to our freedom.

Hat tip: PrisonPlanet.com

Thankfully, one state is resisting: Texas.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw call the EPA’s actions an illegal power grab and in a letter to the EPA they wrote:

"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations — regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws… To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."

In an Op-Ed piece in today’s The Washington Times, Texas state director of Americans for Prosperity Peggy Venable writes that:

Federalist principles have allowed Texas to become the strongest state in the union. The Lone Star State leads the nation in job creation, is the top state for business relocation and has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state and is the top state for wind generation. President Obama said he wants to double U.S. exports in five years; he could look to Texas, as we are the top exporting state in the country. The Obama administration could learn a lot from Texas.

Instead, it is attempting to ride roughshod over Texas, and it goes beyond the greenhouse-gas issue.

After 16 years of allowing Texas to run its own permitting program to meet Federal air-quality standards, in May the EPA announced the state was not in compliance with Federal regulations. This despite the fact that Texas had met or exceeded its clean air obligations the entire time.

The Obama administration’s agenda is simple: Grab more and more power from the States and consolidate it under the Federal government. Thankfully, Texas will have no part of it.

If only the other 49 States will follow Texas’ lead.