Maine State Representative Richard Cebra (R-Naples) has been a reliable defender of the Tenth Amendment over the years in Augusta, sponsoring resolutions that reaffirm the importance of the Tenth Amendment to bills nullifying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Recently, he has been joined by individuals like Representative Melvin Newendyke (R-Litchfield), who introduced the Intrastate Commerce Act and Representative Aaron Libby (R-Waterboro), who had a few bills in such as P.P.A.C.A. nullification and Defend the Guard. Never before, has there been a stronger movement towards the Tenth Amendment in Augusta. This tradition, like with the Tenth Amendment Center itself, started with the opposition to the REAL ID Act of 2005, which would’ve steered the nation towards a national identification card.

One could only imagine the words George Orwell might have to say about the world around us. The visionary of a dystopian future or a man of warning unheeded, he has written a lot of what did come true. There is Animal Farm,  which showed how a new government formed on equality becomes totalitarian and powerful because of lust and greed. Even more well known is Nineteen Eighty-Four, which carries two major themes: the power of propaganda and the expansion of the police state.

We’re at a defining moment in history.

Trillions of dollars in debt, a number in the financial world difficult to stomach (unless you have enough propaganda artists), and because of the turmoil, a government slowly chokes it’s clinching fingers upon the throat of the Constitution. Both sides of the spectrum have seen grassroots uprisings that threaten the establishment in both parties, with Occupy on the left and the Tea Party on the right. Each has their issues, whether it be social justice or elimination excessive taxation, and it has fueled it’s growing relevance. But they, like their establishment counterparts, fail to come together towards any meaningful goals. The media still remains successful in maintaining a dark and politically bloody divide.

Liberty has failed to unite up until this point, because of various issues. Capitalism has been given a bad name because of corporatism, and thus, the mere mention of the former incites hatred from the left. But is capitalism all that bad? Not so much, as the big corporations would not have the big government steroids that enable a much larger advantage over the smaller, fair players. On the right, social conservatism enables them to rival their counterparts in the competition for biggest big government policies. Best way to save the economy? Restore constitutional governance? Make sure two consenting adults do not enter into a contract that does not affect anyone else, simply because it is not of our approval.

It would seem as though we’re never going to find common ground. Can we?

Enter National Defense Authorization Act.

REDEFINING THE DIVIDE

As previously established, the divide has always been conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democrat. Ayn Rand once noted that there is only one real battle, and that is freedom vs. tyranny. Republicans fight those bad people in the other party that believe in economic slavery and the Democrats fight those bad people in the other party because they believe in social control. Nevermind that Republicans have Medicare Part D and TARP to brag about, while the Democrats continue to insist on social freedom while protecting the government control over that freedom.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 changed everything. Republicans and Democrats found themselves under the same rallying call. Groups scattered at every corner of the spectrum, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Tenth Amendment Center, began standing up to the bill. The point of controversy? Sections 1021 and 1022. The first deals with detention without trial, with the second dealing with military custody.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-California) claimed in an article on RedState that the bill did nothing more than confirm what was previously known as of the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force: that the  ”affirm that the military may lawfully detain foreign individuals who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States. He further states that the provision “explicitly exempts U.S. citizens from the requirement.”

All is well, right? Once again, the government solution is always the answer to the problem, right?

Congressman Justin Amash (R-Michigan) however offered a different perspective. While many government figures in the executive and legislative branches have claimed it does nothing more than merely confirm what the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force authorized, Congressman Amash notes that it already authorized indefinite detention. So when Section 2011 of NDAA confirms what we already knew, it does technically uphold the indefinite detention.

In a very careful and complex way, we were nearly fooled. In regards to the bill’s successful passage, Congressman Amash correctly observed, “The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity.”

But we won’t get fooled again. And so goes the infighting within the Republican Party, while Democrats rally against it as well. For political gain?

For liberty.

MAKING A STATEMENT

The Tenth Amendment Center’s NDAA legislative tracking page has a few resolutions passed, a couple half way there, and several introduced. The most recent statement was made by Maine, with the House voting in favor on March 19th and the Senate doing so twenty-four hours later. Although the resolutions themselves are non-binding, they send a clear message: we won’t back down.

This is an important first step to put states on the map. Virginia, Utah, and Maine have all successfully done so. 47 states remain. In the meantime, it is important for these three states to move forward and take the lead. Putting force to the statement, by taking a stand, will encourage others to take the time and effort to stand up.

TAKING A STAND

The Tenth Amendment Center offers three pieces of draft legislation, for varying levels. The first, which the three states noted above have done, is a resolution affirms the roles of government and calls on the federal government to backdown. Although three states have taken this on successfully, NOBODY has made it beyond this point.

Yet.

Because straight-forward nullification may not be viable because of it’s mainstream reputation and the lack of awareness among the mainstream, it is necessary to take steps. First, the resolution. Then, the non-compliance act. The non-compliance act is an actual law and is binding, which takes the next step of refusing state support of the indefinite detention provisions of the federal law. State agencies would be lawfully required to refuse compliance with the federal government in enforcing the National Defense Authorization Act.

Only then, can a state tackle the final step of the nullification act, which would take the non-compliance act a step further by also making the federal law illegal and setting penalties for those who attempt enforcement.

CAN IT BE DONE?

It seems like a difficult idea to stomach for some: the small little state government taking on the behemoth that has become of the federal government. How can a state government, who relies on the federal government for funding on many projects, possibly stand it’s ground?

Flashback to where it all began: the launch of the Tenth Amendment Center and the jumpstart of the modern nullification movement. 2006 saw what has never occurred before on such a large scale and so fast, as many states moved forward to refuse compliance with REAL ID. States either outright refused to allow the bill to move forward in their territory, or they refused to fund the compliance of it, as the States were forced to foot the bill.

Now that the big scary beast has been taunted, it’s going to strike back, right? Funding cuts or threats thereof, federal agents hitting the ground running?

Think again.

March 2, 2007 came around and after the bill’s passage on May 11, 2005, the federal government was still facing heavy resistance it was not used to. The result was the announcement that enforcement would be extended for two years, with the deadline now December 2009.

That was that. The federal government means business and they’re going to put their foot down, right? The states won’t have any impact.

Think again.

The new year rolled around in 2008 and resistance still hadn’t calmed, despite the best hopes from the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. who want to perform the noble deed of keeping us safe from ourselves. Come the 11th of January, another announcement came from the federal government: you’ve been extended, until 2011.

Well, we were lucky to get this far without any real push back. Even with half of the states in the union, at the very least, standing their ground, we were still due to fail. Right?

Wrong.

March 2011 rolled around without much change in the situation, as states still refused to stand down. Still frustrated, but not giving up after six long years, the federal government sent another message to the states: once more, you have been given another chance. The current extension has the date of implementation at January 15, 2013.

Nobody has backed down still. An extension is likely coming, seven years later.

WE THE PEOPLE

We the people have spoken on various issues, with the Tenth Amendment being applied to right-wing issues such as healthcare, as well as left-wing issues such as the wars. Although the Constitution knows no partisan boundaries, it is used in partisan politics as a weapon to win elections and damage one’s foes. It has become a tool for gain, instead of a shield for the people.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, with it’s indefinite detention provisions, changes everything. With Occupiers and Tea Partiers, liberals and conservatives, coming together, the people are putting aside their petty differences to stand for what’s right.

United we stand, divided we fall. The message rang true after September 11th, 2001 and it still remains a fact of reality. We, as the greatest experiment in liberty that human history has ever known, must remain united. We can point fingers in our local coffee shops as arguments echo down the halls of Congress, and we can bicker all day, but it will divert us.

This is what the establishment wants. This is what tyranny relies on.

Division leads to easier submission.

But we’re Americans. As a free people, strong and principled, we’re better than that. And we’re going to prove the world wrong by relighting the torch of liberty and holding it high for all the world to see.

And we will do it with nullification.

Representative Richard Cebra (R-Naples) has submitted a Joint Resolution that will be voted on early this week. HP 1397, “Joint Resolution Memorializing The President of the United States and the United States Congress to Review Portions of the National Defense Authorization Act”, would send a clear message on behalf of the people they represent, that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Although there are a large number of co-sponsors, giving it a strong shot at passage, we must not stand down. We need to act immediately as it could be voted on as soon as Monday. If your Representative and Senator are not on the co-sponsor list, please contact them and urge them to support this legislation.

TO READ THE TEXT, CLICK HERE.

TO READ SPONSOR/CO-SPONSOR LIST, CLICK HERE.

If you are unsure of who your Representative and Senator is, please look it up at the official State Legislature website’s directory.

Once you have contacted your legislature, do not stop there. The work is not over. Spread this on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking websites. E-mail the link to your friends, and encourage others to get involved. This is IMPORTANT.

—

The Tenth Amendment Center also offers three pieces of draft legislation regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. This Resolution is similar to the first piece, which is also a non-binding resolution.

There is also a non-compliance act, which would require all state agencies to refuse compliance with the federal government in enforcing the NDAA. The third piece of draft legislation is a nullification law, which would not only refuse compliance, but render the federal law void in Maine and impose penalties for enforcement.

All pieces of draft legislation can be found at the Liberty Preservation Act’s page .

If you feel strongly about any of the other draft legislation, please present the idea to your legislators. A non-binding resolution sends a strong message, but it’s only the first step towards taking a stand for our liberties and resisting unconstitutional overreach.

Any questions or comments, please contact Maine State Coordinator Chris Dixon at chris.dixon@tenthamendmentcenter.com. 

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has been a heated topic of discussion across the Internet, while an ongoing media blackout continues. To their credit however, Fox News asked a question regarding the law at a recent Republican Presidential Debate. While former Senator Rick Santorum noted that U.S. citizens detained do have a right to have their day in court and Congressman Ron Paul stated the legislation was a breach of the judicial system, former Governor Mitt Romney gave President Barack Obama an endorsement of faith. Stating that he doesn’t think President Obama “will abuse this power,” he also said he would’ve signed the law.

And there were boos. But why? Shouldn’t all Americans favor locking up terrorists who wish to do harm to us?

If only the answer that simple. The trouble that arises for any member of the U.S. Government is that inconvenient thing called the law, which is supposed to be made pursuant to the Constitution. Article 6 clearly states that this document and all pursuant laws will be “supreme law of the land,” thus implying laws that are made in direct contradiction are null and void. Under the Constitution, citizens are granted the right to due process of law and cannot be stripped of that right without going to trial.

Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act states:

“[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

1021 (E), an amendment added by Senator Diane Feinstein, adds however:

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

The amendment by Sen. Feinstein is often cited in refuting the concern that American citizens could be detained indefinitely. Congressman Justin Amash (R-Michigan) however, refuted that claim in a Facebook post titled “The Truth About The New Detainee Policy in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).” He notes:

“The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not ‘affect existing law or authorities’ relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil.  If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true.  Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested.  It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.”

Rep. Amash then goes on to note that Sen. Feinstein had introduced a separate amendment that would state the section “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.” While the former amendment passed 99-1, the latter amendment failed 44-55.

While both of Maine’s Representatives to the House, Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree, voted against the legislation, both Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voted in favor.

The United States Congress has a strong history, especially as of recent, of strengthening the centralization of government and blatantly ignoring the Constitution. While Rep. Amash leads the fight on the Federal level, he is still among a minority in Washington D.C. that believes citizens are not criminals. With our current members unwilling to change their position and do the job they were elected to do, it would take election cycles over many years to replace them all and change the tide. Unfortunately, time is not something we can afford to waste.

“The rightful remedy” is nullification, as stated by principle author of the Declaration of Independence and later third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. “Father of the Constitution” James Madison also once stated it was the duty of the States to interpose when powers beyond the Constitution’s limits were taken on by the Federal Government. The purpose for this was not to create a state of disarray among levels of government, but rather to maintain the balance. Under the Constitution, the Federal Government is given a very specific set of enumerated powers, while all else, unless specifically prohibited, is left to the States.

Thus, it is not only the right of the State, but their responsibility, to nullify the National Defense Authorization Act. The State Legislature and Governor must come together to make it known who has the power, and that they will protect Maine citizens’ rights. Sheriffs also must make it known that they will not allow unlawful arrests within their jurisdiction.

The Maine Tenth Amendment Center will pursue advancing nullification in Maine, with a push to get legislation introduced in Augusta and further spread the word about the tyranny rising in Washington D.C. A Facebook page has been created for this, “Mainers Against The NDAA“; Please “like” and spread the word.

We will stand by the Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions.

Today is an important day for United States history. Across our country, Americans remember the life of a remarkable individual who took a stand against legislated injustice and refused to stand down when threatened with the unjust force of law. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of ideas, revolutionary for his time. As we’ve always been taught, from the cradle onward, what is the law must be obeyed without a second thought. If the law becomes tyrannical, then we are told that writing our congressmen is the proper cure, as if it actually works. But as recent history has shown us, it doesn’t; in fact, Congress isn’t shy about its total disregard for the Constitution, anymore. The Federal Government can search your house without a warrant and wiretap your phones without such, as well. United States citizens, who are guaranteed due process of law under the Constitution, can now be detained without ever having contact with a lawyer or standing before a judge. This punishment for a crime untried can be for an indefinite period of time, as a single member of the government can deem right.

But it’s the law, right?

Certainly, the Federal Government has it’s lawful powers and those must not be infringed upon; every piece of this great country’s government has a legitimate function. But the memories of a tyrannical government imposing its unjust, but lawful will from far away places was still fresh in the minds of our Founders when they ratified the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment was passed as the final part of the Bill of Rights, a series of amendments ratified to protect the individual from the Federal Government, to specifically keep the government within its boundaries.

But still, the Constitution is just an archaic remnant of yesterday’s generation, right? Everything the judiciary does today, without respect to whatever may be the supreme law of the land, is the law, right? Everything the Congress does today, without respect to whatever they may truly be restricted to, is law the law, right?

The very foundation of America was on resistance of government that claims powers that are not granted to it by the people. Our Republican form of government is incompatible with central tyranny. History shows us that government when left to its own will, unchecked, never results in good government.

Dr. King once issued one of the strongest warnings to the future regarding blind obedience to the law, when he stated “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

Although it is an extreme example, it is a very real one. Society must not neglect the lessons history wishes to teach, or a repeat of abuses will occur. In the case of Germany, what started with blind nationalism and a wish to restore a country’s dignity led to one man being given the power to accomplish this fact; the rest, is history.

In 1933, the Reichstag caught on fire and the result of this arson attack on Germany led to a power grab. The result was the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended many civil liberties and began the trend of intense prejudice that would become the violent Nazi legacy. An entire group of people, in this case being the Communists, were blamed for the fire and many were imprisoned within days. The individual responsible, Marinus von der Lubbe, may have been a Communist, but does that lay blame on an entire group of people? And so the problem of collectivist thought arises, but sadly, it only gets worse from here.

Early domestic opponents of the Nazis included political opponents, such as communists, socialists, and trade unionists. The first concentration camp at Dauchau was constructed just for these individuals, who had been demonized as a collective group to a point where national apathy could be achieved when the atrocities began. If a group is demoralized to a point, who will dare stand up for their rights?

Other victims of the Nazi regime were homosexuals, who were detained by the thousands. The Gestapo, carrying out the opinion of the regime that they defiled German blood, would round up many by the tens of thousands over a ten year period. For their supposed sexual abuse crimes, some were castrated and others were humiliated and tortured.

Several thousand Jehoval’s Witnesses were rounded up, as were several tens of thousands of Freemasons. The Action T4 program resulted in, in order to preserve the “genetic purity” of the German population, the round up of several tens of thousands of disabled individuals. Then there were the Romanis, Slavs, Serbs, Poles, and the Jews who were also rounded up and mistreated, subjected to cruel inhumane experiments, and executed.

And in one nation, this was the law.

There was no due process of law to protect these people, for if there were, it wouldn’t have occurred. Habeas corpus is an annoyance to a government with goals outside of justice. The Gestapo, the secret police of the Nazi regime, resorted to a series of tactics in violation of the Weimar Constitution. The Enabling Acts, which were passed by the Reichstag after the fire, overruled their Constitution.

But this was the law. And we shall, without question, obey the law, right?

Although thankfully, the United States has not fallen to this low, we still must not forget the lessons learned. The Nazi regime may have taught humanity that cruelty and oppression knows no boundaries, but it also taught us some serious lessons about collectivism and the law. The crimes against humanity committed by the Third Reich were the result of the denial of individual rights, by subscribing to the idea that an entire people, without regard to individual character, is guilty as a whole group. A single Communist had burned down the Reichstag, so all Communists were thus guilty of being violent arsonists. The further demoralization of an entire group leads to their demise being easier to swallow by the general population, for if the propaganda feeds it enough, a second thought will not be granted if it means protecting the interests of an infallible nation.

Martin Niemöller, a German pastor, is famous for a poem written after the fall of the regime. Written in remorse of his own inaction to help the victims of such tyranny, as well as about the inactivity of those around him, it lists a series of people who the Nazi government had come for. “When they came for…, I remained silent because I was not…”, and that was repeated a few times with different groups included. Then at the end, Niemöller, who himself was imprisoned at the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps, states “then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

This was all the result of intense prejudice and ignorance of the will of an unrestrained government.

Of course, this is why individualism is important. Individualism, an important pillar of the American Republic, is incompatible with racism. If one truly views each person as a miracle of existence, a free thinking being of limitless possibility, then racism is impossible. Racist thought is collectivist thought.

And a second important point, is that just because the law is the law, does not mean it is just. The U.S. Declaration of Independence is the greatest piece of resistance to tyranny in human history. The Declaration clearly states three principles in the beginning: each individual is created equally and with the same inherent rights that cannot be forcefully deprived (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”), the ultimate extent of government is decided from the people who it derives its power from (“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”), and thus the power to directly oppose the government’s will is just by the people when it oversteps its specifically delegated boundaries (“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”).

Nullification is the principle of keeping government in check, with the State acting on behalf of the people against unlawful powers claimed by the Federal Government. Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, stated in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, “where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.” Jefferson would go on to make the point, “that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.”

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, said in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, “in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.”

Civil disobedience and peaceful resistance to unlawful acts of government is essential to maintaining a free government. Just as Northern States in the 1850s refused to obey Federal laws declaring that runaway slaves, individuals who were victims of legislated racism, were to be returned to their “owners” in the South, Martin Luther King Jr. refused to obey laws that were unjust, and thus not compatible with the natural law on which our Constitution is based upon.

On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, remember that a central piece to the freedoms and liberties we enjoy in America are the principles of impartial justice and individual opportunity. When due process of law is deprived, when individual rights are infringed upon, and when such becomes widely accepted, history shows us that humanity walks down a dark road. This is why the principles of freedom and liberty are preferred by a people who wish to be secure in their individual pursuits, free from legislated prejudice. And in order to secure a prosperous future for our children, we must protect freedom against all tyranny.

As reported yesterday by the Maine Tenth Amendment Center, the State has made good on its April 6th promise to prosecute farmers in towns that have passed a Food Sovereignty Ordinance. Walter Whitcomb, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Agriculture, has not backed down.

“It was not done as a statement. There were people who contacted our inspectors from that area, believe it or not, who were concerned that this might be a potential health problem,” Whitcomb told the Bangor Daily News. To his credit however, according to the same article, he acknowledges this is viewed as a larger “turf war.” No matter how many times Whitcomb stands by the summons against Brown, the fact still remains that this is a “turf war.” If it were not, then the letter would’ve never been sent to the municipalities who have passed or who were actively considering the ordinance.

A food safety risk? The summons lists some issues relating to Brown’s operations, based off of government tests of the product. The fact still remains however, that there are no cases of illnesses linked to the products, we just have the government’s word. And for those of you keeping score, the bigger corporations have developed an immunity to intervention from our great defenders in government. While many people get sick from E. Coli and Salmonella every year from disgusting factory conditions or general neglect in operations, the outrage seems to be calmed by a simple recall. And yet, nobody has become sick from Brown’s raw products, and he’s the next big threat.

Perhaps the big threat is Dan Brown. Perhaps the big threat does lie in each of the five towns that have passed the Food Sovereignty Ordinance. To maintain control, one cannot allow non-compliance to persist, as any Federal agency will tell you. Unfortunately, despite the change of leadership in Augusta, they still take pages from the Federal playbook.

Whitcomb didn’t stop there however, as he has implied an agenda is at work to undermine public safety. “It’s become a popularity contest versus human health,” Whitcomb is quoted as stating. Again, where is the human health problem? No illnesses have been reported in connection to Brown’s products.

Whitcomb did tell the Bangor Daily News that individuals had reported health concerns to the State. While perhaps there is a cause for concern, nobody was forced to purchase Brown’s product. It has become a big story over the last year that Blue Hill was among the five towns in a growing movement in defense of local agriculture, in direct defiance of Federal and State regulations. If any individual had any reservations, they reserve the right to not purchase the product. This is the nature of a free market economy, which many newcomers in Augusta have regularly attacked the previous Administration and opposing party for oppressing.

Contrary to the charge that this is a popularity contest with an agenda to undermine public safety, this is actually a movement to help local agriculture to prosper. The Republicans that now dominate Augusta have claimed that regulations have hurt the economy and that constant interference has injured otherwise prosperous businesses. It’s been often said that Democrats are the anti-business party. It appears to be however, that like in all other matters, the opposition to freedom is a bipartisan agreement among establishments.

So, as Whitcomb does observe, this is a turf war. The problem is, it shouldn’t be. Nobody has been forced to purchase Brown’s products, thus, there is no issue that the State should intervene in. If one has reservations, the simple answer is not to purchase it. We’re all responsible adults capable of making our own decisions. Beyond this, those who have decided to purchase Brown’s products have not gotten ill. So despite the claims from the State that there is a health safety risk, the facts would suggest otherwise.

Instead, the health risk that should be investigated is pasteurized milk, which studies continue to show it may not be all it’s cracked up to be. A Natural News article cited a report that found a “toxic chemical cocktail of 20 painkillers, antibiotics, and growth hormones” in pasteurized milk. The article then continues, “In addition to containing drug-related chemicals such as niflumic acid, mefenamic acid and ketoprofen, the milk studied was found to contain the hormone 17-beta-estradiol. A form of the sex hormone oestrogen, the hormone was detected at three millionths of a gram in every kilogram of milk. Compared to niflumic acid, which was detected at less than one millionth of a gram per kilogram of milk, 17-beta-estradiol was found to have a much larger presence in the milk studied. Similar to the estrogen-mimicking bisphenol A (BPA), which has been found in a majority of plastic water bottles and food cans worldwide, 17-beta-estradiol can negatively impact the male hormonal balance in a way that can lead to unknown long-term consequences.”

The article continues on to state that farmers who do not shoot up their livestock with hormones and feed them chemically-treated produce have a much greater quality in milk, noting “Organic raw milk has been tied to a number of health benefits due to its role as a balanced food rich in vitamins and protein. Raw milk contains all 20 of the standard amino acids, which are considered to be the very building blocks of life.” It continues on to observe “it also contains a significant amount of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA), an omega-6 fatty acid that has ties to increased fat loss and to improved metabolic function. The pasteurization process eliminates many of the nutrients that make raw milk a valued health food, virtually destroying the nutritional integrity of the drink.”

What is really the public safety risk, Mr. Whitcomb? Is there really a public safety risk, or just a possibility that the raw milk industry might actually win against the suppliers of chemically-loaded pasteurized milk?  Or that the people might actually disagree with the government and this resistance could present a serious problem for the control every controlling government wishes to maintain?

Stop the “turf war”, it’s a losing battle.

In the last year, five towns in Maine have moved to protect local commerce in a hurting economy by nullifying State and Federal regulations. As previous reported by the Maine Tenth Amendment Center regarding Sedgwick, the first town to do so, “Under the new ordinance, producers and processors are protected from licensure or inspection in sales that are sold for home consumption between them and a patron, at farmer’s market, or at a roadside stand. The ordinance specifically notes the right of the people to food freedom, as well as citing the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Maine Constitution in defending the rights of the people.” National Family Farm Coalition member and local Sedgwick farmer Bob St. Peter noted, “Rural working people have always had to do a little of this and a little of that to make ends meet. But up until the last couple generations, we didn’t need a special license or new facility each time we wanted to sell something to our neighbors. Small farmers and producers have been getting squeezed out in the name of food safety, yet it’s the industrial food that is causing food borne illness, not us.”

The push back has begun, but instead of the Federal Government leading a charge against non-compliance, it is the State Government. Maine Agricultural Commissioner Walter Whitcomb, who was appointed by Republican Governor Paul LePage, has followed through on a threat against local farmers in a struggling economy. In a letter dated April 6th, Whitcomb made it very clear that non-compliance “will be subject to enforcement, including the removal from sale of products from unlicensed sources and/or the imposition of fines.” Dan Brown of Gravelwood Farms is being sued by the State for operating without a license.

Trenton citizen Doug Wollmar, who introduced the Ordinance in his town, noted Article 1, Section 2 of the Maine Constitution and a Statute.

Article 1, Section 2 states: “All power is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit, [and that] they have therefore an unalienable and indefensible right to institute government and to alter, reform, or totally change the same when their safety and happiness require it.”

Title 7, Sections 1-A and 1-B states, “The survival of the family farm is of special concern to the people of the State, and the ability of the family farm to prosper, while producing an abundance of high quality food and fiber, deserves a place of high priority in the determination of public policy.”

“The State is not following its’ own laws. Dan Brown’s ability to prosper has been impaired by the State,” Wollmar correctly notes. “Has anyone complained that Dans products made them ill? No.”

Local farmer John O’Donnell pointed out that Maine citizens have a right to purchase from local farmers, as well as noting that this is “very bad use of taxpayer money.” O’Donnell was also a driving force behind LD 1172, “An Act To Prohibit Enforcement of Federal Laws in Violation of the Constitution of the United States“, which was introduced by State Representative Mel Newendyke (R-Litchfield).

Wollmar and O’Donnell however, are not alone in defending Brown. According to the Facebook page created for him, “Residents of Blue Hill will be attending the Selectmen’s meeting on Friday, November 18 to enforce the provisions of the Ordinance. The Blue Hill residents will be instructing the Town of Blue Hill to send a letter to the Maine Department of Agriculture requesting the State withdraw the lawsuit and recognize the authority of the Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance.”

With five towns passing these ordinances with strong support from farmers and consumers alike, and the Legislature passing a “Food Sovereignty Resolution”, it appeared that Maine was steering in a direction in defense of its local agricultural communities, instead of in opposition. This has not been the case however.

When LD 1172 was being debated in committee, Attorney General William Schneider submitted testimony for the hearing claiming the legislation was “unconstitutional.” This however is false, as the U.S. Constitution is clear on the issue. The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, and the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Clause 2) states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” are supreme. This was further detailed in the Maine Tenth Amendment Center’s testimony in favor of the legislation.

Now beyond refusing to stand with Mainers in a struggling economy, they are actively oppressing them.

In a release from the Family Farm Defense Committee of Hancock County, the point is made that “Cargill and other Big Agribusiness corporations continue to recall contaminated food in the millions of pounds, causing sickness and death, and getting off scott free.” While the businesses escape justice, the local farmers are being pursued. Where are the government priorities?

Please ACT now in defense of local commerce. Maine not only depends on it, but other States do, where towns are considering the same ordinance. If this case goes through on Brown, it sets a dangerous precedent in opposition to agriculture. Please respectfully contact these government officials and urge them to withdraw the lawsuit and stand with local farmers, not against them.

Walter Whitcomb, Agricultural Commissioner, State of Maine
207-287-3419
walt.whitcomb@maine.gov

Governor Paul LePage
207-287-3531
888-577-6690 (TTY)
governor@maine.gov

There will also be a media call from 10-11am Thursday morning, where Dan Brown will make a statement and Bob St. Peter will also discuss the campaign urging the State to withdraw the lawsuit. To join the call, dial 866-305-2467 and use the code “260454#.” Donations are also being taken to help defend Brown and stand up for Food Sovereignty; to make a contribution, visit this link.

A Facebook page has also been created to show support for Brown, as well as provide updates on the situation as it develops.

A rally and press conference will also be held in Blue Hill on Friday at noon. For more details, please visit the Facebook event page for the event.

Maine has a strong tradition of nullification in recent years. Despite the Controlled Substances Act being on the books, the people of Maine nullified this unconstitutional law by allowing for the use of medical marijuana in 1999. Medical marijuana was again voted on a couple of years ago and passed, in clear violation of the Federal legislation. Although it has become a popular movement over the last decade, in the beginning, it started small with California leading the push.

Just several years later, Maine would again lead the nation against unjust Federal legislation, when Congress passed the REAL ID Act of 2005. The legislation, which created a national identification card, was opposed by many groups on both sides of the fence as unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy. Maine passed a Resolution opposing the law, which led to over half of the States in the Union passing legislation directly resisting the bill or defunding compliance measures, which were left to the States. In the most recent session of the legislature, State Representative Ben Chipman (U-Portland), again led Maine in standing up for the rights of the Maine people, with LD 1068 (See “Bill Challenging REAL ID Gains Bipartisan Support“).

State Representative Richard Cebra (R-Naples), who is now running for the State Senate, has also been a strong supporter of the Tenth Amendment, introducing Tenth Amendment resolutions and regularly supporting measures in defense of limited government. State Representative Aaron Libby (R-Waterboro) introduced the Defend The Guard Act, which would return control of the National Guard to the Governor, as required by the U.S. Constitution. He also introduced legislation to nullify the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare” by opponents, and infamous for it’s insurance mandate imposed upon American citizens. State Representative Mel Newendyke (R-Litchfield) introduced the Intrastate Commerce Act, which would nullify all unconstitutional Federal laws affecting in-state commerce. Various measures, especially the opposition to REAL ID, gained bipartisan support. The Constitution is not a political issue, nor is it a divisive one. We are all united behind the idea of a prosperous and free State for all Mainers to live in.

This is only the beginning however and the situation in America is growing worse. Despite Federal Prohibition being in violation of the Constitution, the Federal Goverment is cracking down on legitimate medical marijuana usage in California, instead of cracking down on the violence on the border resulting from an ongoing drug war. A war on raw milk is being waged, with Amish communities even becoming the target of Federal raids. The Federal Government possesses the ability to wiretap your phones, monitor your e-mails, and GPS track you. Where does the madness end?

This is not the America our Founders gave us. But where do we go when Congress, the President, and the Judiciary refuse to stand up for what is right? Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, answered “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

We will expand that in 2012.

With yet another crackdown being threatened on California and a history already of oppressing sick victims, uncertainty lingers here in Maine. We, too, have medical marijuana users with patients and caregivers acting in full compliance of State law. But what if the Federal Government comes knocking on our doors? Can we rely on Governor Paul LePage, the Tea Party favorite who claims to support the Constitution, to stand up to them? Can we rely on the State Legislature to use their power to order resistance on behalf of the people? Can we rely on the local sheriffs to stand up for their citizens they’re supposed to protect?

Twice, the people have Maine have spoken. How many more times do they have to speak before the message is clear?

One focus of the Maine Tenth Amendment Center going into 2012 will be pushing to further support the medical marijuana community. The sick patients and the caregivers who wish to take care of them were granted approval to operate under Maine law, and they trust that their elected representatives will do the right thing. Federal Prohibition is being enforced in direct violation of the Constitution, specifically, the Tenth Amendment. We cannot allow the Federal Government to push around sick people or the people who care for them, any longer.

A second focus will be on furthering the interests of local commerce. In the last year, four Maine towns have passed Food Sovereignty Ordinances, nullifying unconstitutional laws affecting local commerce. The Maine Legislature also passed a Food Sovereignty Resolution, which, while non-binding, reaffirmed the natural right of the people over the unlawful overreach of the Federal Government. While we’ve taken major steps forward, there is still much to be done. The Intrastate Commerce Act, which would’ve nullified all unconstitutional laws affecting in-state commerce, was defeated in the legislature. We will not rest however, as Maine communities should be able to operate locally without the chains of unjust legislation weighing down their operations.

A third focus, a major project, will be bringing the Nullify Now tour to Maine. Nullify Now has been very successful for the Tenth Amendment Center, with stops all across the country. Most recently, the tour went to Jacksonville and will be going to Philadelphia after the start of the new year. We hope to bring it to Maine. For more information on how to help, please visit the official page for Nullify Now Maine here.

In the near future, we will be unveiling detailed information on all of our projects heading into 2012. There will be more coming, as we plan on expanding the Maine Tenth Amendment Center and stepping up operations. Please keep up to date by following our website. You can also find us on Facebook and Twitter. I also invite anyone with questions or comments, to contact me at chris.dixon@tenthamendmentcenter.com.

Thank you for your continued support.

For liberty,

Chris Dixon
State Coordinator,
Maine Tenth Amendment Center

CROSS-POSTED FROM THE TENTH AMENDMENT CENTER BLOG

The Burlington Free Press reports from Vermont,

Eight helicopters on loan from the Illinois National Guard were expected to arrive Tuesday night in Vermont to help the Vermont National Guard deliver food, medicine, water and other supplies to 13 Vermont towns cut off from the rest of the state in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene.

The outside helicopter support is needed because all six of the Vermont Guard’s Black Hawk helicopters are still in Iraq, where they and 55 Vermont soldiers are wrapping up a yearlong hospital transport mission, said Lt. Lloyd Goodrow, spokesman for the Vermont Guard.

Hurricane Irene reminded the East Coast why Mother Nature can be one of the most dangerous forces on the planet, when she struck hard this past weekend. When all was said and done, dozens of lives were lost and many more left without a home, while billions of dollars in damage was caused. One of the States that felt the wrath of Irene was Vermont, which saw widespread flooding and a few deaths. First responders, volunteer organizations, and neighbors were all on hand to help with the rescue and rebuilding efforts as the hurricane exited the State. Outside help had to be requested however, as all six of the Vermont National Guard’s Black Hawk helicopters were serving in Iraq. Luckily, New Hampshire and Illinois’ National Guards came to the rescue, but this still serves as a reminder of the effect that misuse of the militia has on our country.

The invasion and subsequent invasion of Iraq, an undeclared war in violation of the United States Constitution, has been going on for several years. Despite the United States Code describing the National Guard as the “first line of defense” for the homeland, they have been off defending the territory of another country.

Beyond being involved in an occupation unauthorized by the Constitution, the National Guard has been under federal control also in violation of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically lists three situations where the Federal Government can call upon the militia. According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15, Congress can pass laws “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, renamed this “militia” into the “National Guard,” setting the stage for today’s almost total nationalization of our state-level defense.

This is just one of the many ways that the Federal Government’s expansion of government and further centralization in violation of the Constitution has hurt America. States’ Rights has become a movement growing in response however, with nullification being explored by numerous States on a variety of issues. The proper method here for restoring the Constitution’s militia requirements is returning control over it to the Governor, by passing a bill called the “Defend The Guard Act.”

The “Defend The Guard Act” would allow for the Federal Government to call the National Guard into service in the event of invasion or rebellion, or to “execute the Laws of the Union,” provided that said Laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States. But even here, approval from the Governor would be required.

For the text of the bill, please visit the Tenth Amendment Center’s draft legislation located here.

When nullification is discussed, there is a misconception that never seems to go away: why the anarchy? Nullification and the Tenth Amendment is not a topic discussed often. States’ Rights has been discussed by Mitt Romney and his supporters when defending the Massachusetts healthcare law, a controversial program often compared to Democratic President Barack Obama’s law. Newt Gingrich has begun using the message, along with the libertarian topic “End The Fed” often associated with Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul is one of only two candidates for the Republican Presidential Nomination (the other being former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson) who have actually voiced their support for nullification. That is it.

Conservatives and liberals have both often refuted the idea of nullification, claiming it would lead to lawlessness and anarchy. Some libertarians have even dismissed the idea as a fascinating political theory, but something with no actual grounding in reality.

Now odds are, if you’ve been following the Tenth Amendment Center or authors such as Thomas Woods or Kevin Gutzman, you’ve heard about the idea and know the history lesson associated with it. If you haven’t, then some links at the end of this article will provide you with some background on the topic. This will not be repeated; the aim of the article is to understand nullification, not justify it.

Anarchy is often defined as the absence of government and law, where individuals enjoy complete freedom. The image often associated with it is chaos and disorder, with crime at out-of-control levels. Anarchists often reject this image and offer a more positive, utopian world. Both are extremes in the debate and are probably wrong. But the topic here is not anarchy, that is a debate for another day or time.

Nullification is the rejection of unconstitutional Federal laws by the States (it has since come to include towns, as a few Maine towns have passed Food Sovereignty Ordinances nullifying laws that interfere with local commerce). What is and what isn’t constitutional is very straight-forward.

The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The powers “delegated to the United States by the Constitution” can be found in Article 1, Section 8, while the powers “prohibited by it to the States” are found in Article 1, Section 10. Beyond this, all else is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Article 6, Clause 2, better known as the Supremacy Clause, states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Constitution affirms itself as the supreme law of the land, as well as all constitutionally-compliant laws.

Thus, when you hear a “Tenther” voice their support for nullification, they are not advocating usurping legal authority of the U.S. Government, as delegated to it. They are instead reaffirming the rights of the States to exercise their legal authority under the Tenth Amendment. Whereas it is often suggested States’ Rights supporters are advancing lawlessness, they are actually expressing the highest respect for the law by restoring its proper constitutional balance.

NULLIFICATION RESOURCES:
“Reclaiming the Jeffersonian Tradition of Nullification” by Kevin R.C. Gutzman. Gutzman, Associate Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University, is the author of “Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1176-1840” and “The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution.” He also wrote “Who Killed The Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War 1 to Barack Obama.” His new book, “James Madison and the Making Of America“, will be released in February 2012.

“State Nullification” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Woods, a Senior Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is the author of eleven books, including “Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse” and “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.”

“It’s Not About Political Parties. It’s About Liberty” by Michael Boldin. Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

“METAC Testimony on LD 1172 (Intrastate Commerce Act)” by Chris Dixon. Dixon is the State Coordinator of the Maine Tenth Amendment Center.

It’s no secret that the United States Constitution is a document in exile, to paraphrase the title of a brilliant work written by senior Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. In his book, “The Constitution In Exile” which was praised by members of the left and the right, Judge Napolitano offers the reader with a run through history, but not the history you’re used to. Your standard textbook omits points that coincidentally reinforce the benefits of freedom, whether it is political or economic, and tend to give a slant more in the direction of centralization. Despite the repeated failures of a control-freak government, the spin doctors never fail to come to its rescue. The Federal Government is a group of noble aristocrats who know better than us lesser individuals who would be lost without them. After all, what is more noble than making sure you’re using the right light bulb?

It’s in these ridiculous little issues though, where the root of the problem can be found. While many argue that these are little issues and thus should be disregarded when it comes to facing the test of the Constitution, the contrary can be argued. If a government is given a free pass on anything that violates a core document that is the supreme law of the land, then logically, the government will only begin to hoard power. It was Frederick Douglass who famously said, “Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” As the Federal Government continues trampling our liberties, how much longer will we endure before we declare enough is enough?

In the opening of the Preface to his book, Judge Napolitano poses the question, “Do we still have a Constitution?” The media would quickly tell you the answer is irrelevant, because the document is out-dated. As CNN’s Fareed Zakaria will tell you, other countries have it set better than us, because they’ve modernized, while we’re still stuck in the past. TIME magazine’s editor Richard Stengel also notes that our law is merely a guardrail. Well, who can argue the fact that the policy makers of our day pick and choose what to follow and what not to? Nobody, but that doesn’t make injustice any less wrong. With that said, a thousand dollar prize is being offered for the first person who can find “gotcha!” in the text of the U.S. Constitution right after Article 6, Clause 2.

In his article, “One Document, Under Siege,” Stengel makes the case that the document was not perfect. The founders were not perfect either. To his credit, he makes some legitimate points on slavery and women’s rights, which didn’t come for quite some time after ratification. But then the article turns into your standard argument for totalitarian government, when issues such as prohibition and income taxes are brought into the equation. Prohibition wasn’t in the Constitution because it is hardly conceivable that the founders would allow for the Federal Government to intrude in personal lives of individuals when they didn’t even permit the Federal Government to intrude in the intrastate matters of States. The income tax not an issue to be pushed, as many at the time felt it was wrong for a government to seek the fruits of a citizen’s labor. Furthermore, if the founders knew that much of the income tax would go towards maintaining an aggressive foreign policy, they would oppose it even more so.

Zakaria on the other hand shows a complete lack of understanding of the history behind this historic document. In his article, “Is It Time To Update The Constitution,” he makes a few points on the structure of government being outdated. For example, he calls the structure of the Senate undemocratic because of the equal representation for each state, as opposed to the House, which has representation based on population. This however was a check by the founding generation against mob rule, for if public opinion could rule all, we would be a democracy. But as the Constitution notes within, we have a Republican form of government. Public opinion isn’t always just, which is why laws are necessary.

To take things further, he mocks defenders of the Constitution in an interview with “The Blaze” while unknowingly defending a founding idea. After portraying supporters of freedom as those who worship the founding fathers, he then proceeds to list some issues wrong with America, including the tax code. Well, as pointed out to Stengel, the income tax is not a founding idea.

To Zakaria’s credit however, things are chaotic. It is not the system however, but what has become of it because of abuse by our government. But there is a solution! Let’s let him in on a little secret. Want to know how to fix the chaotic system? Here’s how: follow the Constitution!

The system of American Government is not very complicated. We have three separate branches with their own confined powers. The Executive Branch executes the will of the Legislature, as well as be commander-in-chief of the military. The Judicial Branch interprets the law. The Legislative Branch controls the law, within their specifically enumerated boundaries. Under the Tenth Amendment, the Federal Government is limited to the powers enumerated to it, while all else, unless prohibited specifically to them, is then left to the States. Of course, there are more details, but this is the core of how our form of government was intended to operate.

And unless we resurrect the heartbeat, the body won’t function.

Perhaps Stengel was onto something about the U.S. Constitution being a guardrail. If we go off the road, as opposed to staying on constitutional course, we will surely leave ourselves shifting towards tyranny. The problem is, the Constitution is not voluntary. This is something that Stengel fails to grasp. And if we truly did follow it, we wouldn’t have the problems that Zakaria believes we have. It wouldn’t be a chaotic system. But before things can change, America needs to embrace freedom. We, as a nation, need to again respect the Constitution. Apply it to every issue without exception, and only then, will our problems be met with solutions.