Ohio for Ohioans Amendment: Good idea, but needs work

Yesterday, I introduced the proposed "Ohio for Ohioans" Amendment to the Ohio Constitution to provide a means to effectively enforce nullification of federal statutes in violation of the U.S. Constitution and state statutes in violation of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.

This proposal presents several constitutional and legal problems.  Foremost among them is its rather gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The proposed amendment allows the Governor and Attorney General to "collectively" form a Constitutional Review Committee to "compel" the Supreme Court to rule on legislation deemed unconstitutional within 30 days (of what?). It also allows the Governor and Attorney General to "compel" the Ohio General Assembly to invoke impeachment proceedings against public officials who violate their oaths of office. These provisions suggest that their author is not well educated in constitutional law; because one of its most fundamental principles is that the Executive (Governor and statewide elected officials), the General Assembly, and the courts cannot "compel" each other to do anything. The General Assembly initiates impeachment proceedings on its own volition. The Ohio Supreme Court rules on cases that originate in Ohio's trial courts.


Another example of sloppy legal language lies in the statement that

All Ohio Citizens shall have legal standing in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions to challenge the constitutionality of any Ohio law, federal Law, and all government imposed rules, regulations, and mandates that directly affect them on the behalf of all Ohio Citizens.

No. The existing legal procedure is established to maintain an orderly process. This paragraph should omit "in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions."  To apply this clause as stated would make mincemeat of the Ohio judicial system. The amendment should enable all Ohio citizens to challenge constitutionality by filing suit in the county Court of Common Pleas or in a special state trial court established for this purpose. Even so, who will be the trial lawyer to defend the federal government? I cannot imagine any federal attorney deigning to follow a state procedure in what the feds are sure to consider a gross violation of the Supremacy Clause.


I would favor a well-written amendment to assert Ohio's sovereignty, and this one comes closer; but it needs the hand of an attorney who is skilled in constitutional law.

State sovereignty amendment introduced

Steve Kraus is a candidate for Congress in Ohio's 9th District (a district that is, tentatively, a string bean following the Lake Erie shore between Toledo and the eastern edge of Lorain County (between Lorain and Cleveland). In his "Hope for Ohio" website, he endorses the "Ohioans for Ohio" amendment to the Ohio Constitution, the text of which is at the end of this post.

The Ohioans for Ohio amendment is intended to assert Ohio's state sovereignty and right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws; and to hold Ohio's elected officials accountable for enforcing Ohio's sovereignty. It is sure to be controversial, because for many Ohioans (and probably, the U.S. Supreme Court), it will appear to be a challenge to the Supremacy Clause in the U. S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, which reads:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The legal basis for the Ohioans for Ohio amendment lies in the phrase "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof." A reasonably literal interpretation of that phrase strongly suggests that any laws that are patently unconstitutional (not being made "in Pursuance thereof") are null, void, and no law. This then brings up the central issue of nullification. Do the states have the right, as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison* asserted in 1797, to provide a check on the Supreme Court by nullifying unconstitutional federal laws within state boundaries? The Ohioans for Ohio amendment is careful to state that it does not apply to "any law, rule regulation, or mandate... not in contention with the prescribed authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America."

This proposal is much more concise than the amendment proposed in 2009 by the People's Constitutional Coalition, and actually comes close to the improvements I suggested to that amendment; but it still needs work. Tomorrow, I shall explain why.

Here is the text:

Be it resolved by the people of the state of Ohio,

(A) Declaration of State Sovereignty
The State of Ohio hereby claims its sovereignty, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and shall exercise self-determination and self-rule over its government, commerce, education, environment, and energy resources within its domain and within the interests of Ohio citizens and according to law, unconstrained of all foreign authorities, and not in contention with the prescribed authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America. Any law, rule, regulation, or mandate which is not compliant to the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States of America shall be deemed unconstitutional, null and void and without legal force or effect within Ohio.

(B) Enforcement of Constitutions
The Governor or Attorney General are hereby vested with the power to compel the Supreme Court of Ohio to submit a decision within thirty (30) days regarding the constitutionality of any Ohio law, rule, regulation, or mandate or any federal law, rule, regulation, or mandate, whenever it appears that said law rule, regulation, or mandate may not conform or be in compliance to the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States of America, respectively. The Governor and Attorney General, collectively have the authority to form a Constitutional Review Committee and to vest this committee with the power to compel the Supreme Court of Ohio for said decisions. All Ohio Citizens shall have legal standing in all Ohio courts and jurisdictions to challenge the constitutionality of any Ohio law, federal Law, and all government imposed rules, regulations, and mandates that directly affect them on the behalf of all Ohio Citizens. The Supreme Court of Ohio shall provide a process for such challenges which demonstrate viable Constitutional merit.

(C) Violation of Oath or Oaths
It shall be unlawful for any elected public officeholder to violate their oath or oaths in accordance with Section 7 of Article XV of the Ohio constitution. The Governor and Attorney General, collectively or individually, are hereby vested with the power to compel the Ohio General Assembly to invoke impeachment proceedings against such alleged offenders, in accordance with Section 23 of Article II of the Ohio constitution.

* Keep in mind that James Madison is known to history as the "Father of the Constitution" and one of its most fervent supporters in the ratification debates. He surely would have considered the intent of the Framers when writing it.

Some additional thoughts about SB 5

Joe Guillen, a writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer provides concise and objective answers in cleveland.com to rumors that have been floating about on the collective bargaining bill SB 5.

I have been a frequent commenter in the Facebook page called "Support Ohio Senate Bill 5," but which in fact has become a discussion forum both for supporters and opponents. I consider my role in that page to be one of educating the supporters about the realities of being a state employee (which I am), and to exhort those who oppose SB 5 to accept the fact that employees will have to contribute to the solution.

Those who have observed the actions of people like Andy Stern and Richard Trumka should disabuse themselves of the notion that unions are about protecting their members. They do that to some extent, but their principal purpose is to acquire and wield power. This is evident from the fact that payment of union dues is compulsory for employees of corporations and governments whose employees are part of their bargaining units. No one other than management can completely escape paying the dues, though a reduction to a "fair share fee" is available for those who follow a convoluted process to file an objection letter, as I do every year. The absence of a right to work is really a violation of the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 19, because it is a seizure (through the "fair share fee") of the private property of objectors for purposes unconnected to governmental protection of the public welfare.

American organized labor historically has downplayed its association with the international socialist movement; but anyone who reads any political communication by a union knows that they support a large paternalistic government that provides entitlements to everyone, paid for through confiscatory taxes on the "rich". In other words, they make productivity difficult by making it unrewarding. I am sure many union leaders would be happy to offer exceptions to this assertion -- as I am aware that AFSCME and SEIU have on several occasions cooperated with the State of Ohio on such efforts as the governmental flavor of Total Quality Management (known as "Quality Services through Partnership," or QStP) and on a fairer reclassification of positions in information technology; but the overall thrust of their politics has always favored more government and more entitlements.

Attitudes supporting the entitlement mentality were responsible for the failure of the steel and most of the automotive industry in the United States, as pensions and health benefits both for the currently employed and retirees drove their employers to (or close to) bankruptcy. Now the field of conflict is in state and local government. Forced to balance the budget every year, and having run out of accounting tricks to balance the budget, the time has come to make some hard decisions.

SB 5 and the pension reform bill HB 69 will not impoverish public employees, and it really is not intended to punish teachers. It will not reduce our pensions, but it will make some local employees pay the full employee share, as state employees do now. Even with the takeaways, most public employees will have decent salaries, and all will have vacation and other benefits that will continue to be the envy of the private sector. One benefit to employees who care about their professionalism is that a mechanism will put into place to reward those who do outstanding work -- something that has always been missing from public employment.

All of us, regardless of our position on SB 5, should tone down our rhetoric and consider both the public welfare and that which public employees have legitimately earned through their work. Only through reason can the Ohio House write a law that approaches fairness for all.

Original post: "SB 5: A qualified endorsement" from Feb. 22

Today is Ohio Statehood Day

A date hardly anyone observes, but is central to our identity as Ohioans. Part of the reason may be that it is the last of three dates that mark Ohio's statehood:

• November 29, 1802, when Ohio adopted its first state constitution and ratified that of the United States;
• February 19, 1803, when the Congress of the United States passed the Enabling Act recognizing Ohio's statehood and establishing the United Stated District Court for Ohio, and
• March 1, 1803, when the first General Assembly convened in Chillicothe.

The story of how Ohio became a state is an interesting tale of political intrigue between Jeffersonians who wanted Ohio's seats in Congress, and Federalists who wanted to delay Ohio's statehood. It may be found at the Ohio Historical Society's History Central.

Take a few minutes to think about what Ohio means to you. For all of the troubles Ohio has experienced in the last thirty years, there are many lessons we can learn from our past success. Be proud to be an Ohioan!

U. S. House Minority Leader signs Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment petition

... and here's the photo to prove it. Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) signed the petition to place on the November 2011 ballot an Ohio Constitutional amendment forbidding anyone from forcing Ohioans to purchase health care insurance.

From the Ohio Liberty Council:

West Chester, Ohio, September 19, 2010 – Congressman John Boehner, who represents Ohio’s 8th District, has joined thousands of other Ohio voters in signing a petition to allow Ohioans to vote on the proposed Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment. Boehner, the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, signed the petition while in his home district.

The Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment would free Ohioans from the individual mandates of Federal health care legislation. The amendment would preserve the right of Ohioans to choose their own health care and health care insurance coverage, and make their own medical decisions. As a Constitutional Amendment, it would specifically protect health care choice as a right of all Ohioans.

Twenty states have filed suit against the federal government to restore the rights set to be stripped from their citizens by provisions of the federal legislation, and several states have taken other measures to protect the rights of their citizens. Since the governor and legislature of the State of Ohio refused to act to protect their constituents, the Ohio Liberty Council, a volunteer group of conservative citizens, proposed the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment and has led the effort to place it on the ballot for a vote by all Ohio citizens. Not only did Ohio fail to act, but the citizens’ group was forced to obtain a ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court to stop Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and the Ohio Ballot Board from blocking the petition effort by what many Ohioans consider an abuse of their powers.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If a police officer knocks down your door in Ohio, you have the right to take his picture

Several of my friends in Facebook have posted a link to DownsizeDC.org's article on how some states can use illegal wiretapping laws to prohibit a bystander from photographing a police officer committing brutality or making an illegal entry.

The good news is, Ohio is not one of them. In fact, recording a conversation on the phone without the consent of the other party is legal in Ohio, provided that the person recording is one of the parties to the conversation and is not a law enforcement officer (Ohio Revised Code 2933.52(B)(4)). My spot check of the ORC did not find any prohibition on the use of cameras by individuals to record the acts of police.

Ohio law is more effective than most at protecting the liberties of the people; but it is so because Ohioans stand up for their rights, with the help of organizations like the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law. "Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty." - Jefferson

1851 Center files appellate brief in Manna Storehouse case

It's been a while since I last reported on Manna Storehouse. Here's the latest from the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law:

The 1851 Center is defending Manna Storehouse and its owners, the Stowers family (right), arguing that the Ohio Constitution does not permit the Departments of Health and Agriculture to impose a retail grocery store license upon their home-based, private-membership organic food cooperative. The Stowers' home was violently raided by these officials in December 2008.

The 1851 Center successfully obtained a court order for the return of over $10,000 in food seized from the family. However, Judge James Burge ruled against the family on the licensing issue with little comment.

The stringent requirements of the licensing law, as applied, will spell an end to the families' cooperative, which focuses on supporting local agriculture.The Stowers' appeal focuses particular attention on the unconstitutionality of attempting to license basic private activity.

Another health care nullification proposal introduced in Ohio House

State Representatives Terry Boose (R-Norwalk) and Barbara Sears (R-Sylvania) introduced HB 489 on Wednesday, April 14. The purpose of the bill is to nullify any effort by the federal government to make health care insurance mandatory. It is virtually identical to SB 244, introduced March 23 in the Ohio Senate.



This is the fifth legislative proposal brought forth to achieve this object. HB 489 and SB 244, if passed, will result in simple statutes. The other three would result in an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. This array of proposals is likely to get confusing for most people, so I shall try to sort it out here:



The first proposals made were joint resolutions HJR 3 and SJR 7, to place an amendment to the Ohio Constitution to prohibit mandatory participation in the health care system. They were introduced last August and September, before the House Democratic leadership made it generally known that Ohio House Speaker Armond Budish does not support putting forth symbolic resolutions to the federal government on any subject. Essentially, it appears that he finds such resolutions to be a waste of time.



Neither HB 489 and SB 244 have yet been assigned to a committee. Both bills are apparently intended to work around Speaker Budish's objection to resolutions. However, some may view this approach as problematic because it does not amend the Ohio Constitution to protect a fundamental right.



All of the other bills have been assigned to committee, but none of them have been reported out as yet.



This leaves us with the initiative petition offered by the Ohio Liberty Council, which would also amend the Ohio Constitution. The petition was submitted to Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner with the required number of signatures in March, and was certified as to form by Attorney General Richard Cordray April 1.



The initiative would add Section 21 to Article I of the Ohio Constitution with the following language:

ARTICLE I
Preservation of the freedom to choose health
care and health care coverage

Section 21 (A) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.

Section 21 (B) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.

Section 21 (C) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.

Section 21 (D) This section does not affect laws or rules in effect as of March 19, 2010; affect which services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide; affect terms and conditions of government employment; or affect any laws calculated to deter fraud or punish wrongdoing in the health care industry.

Section 21 (E) As used in this Section,

(1) “Compel” includes the levying of penalties or fines.
(2) “Health care system” means any public or private entity or program whose function or purpose includes the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for, or payment for, in full or in part, health care services, health care data, or health care information for its participants.
(3) “Penalty or fine” means any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee established by law or rule by a government established, created, or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.

Despite the relatively brief, straightforward language, the Ohio Ballot Board ruled April 9 that the proposal be divided into two issues, which would force the petition backers to restart the process of collecting some 420,000 signatures, this time for two initiatives. The Ohio Ballot Board does not make clear (to me) how this division is to take place -- my guess is that Section 21 (A), (B), and (C) would be one proposal (dealing with freedom to purchase health care insurance, or not) and the remaining sections would be the other (dealing with "governance" of the health care insurance industry).

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law has filed for a writ of mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court to block the Ohio Ballot Board's decision.

While I dislike adding statutory law to the Ohio Constitution -- in this case, I think it is needed to minimize the likelihood of a future General Assembly taking away what should be an essential freedom. The best solution, then, would be for us to see the initiative passed, hopefully in the November election. Passage would send a statement to the nation that this comes directly from the people of Ohio, that we do not want federal interference with our health care system.

Now here's a Constitutional Amendment I WOULD favor

To prevent so much statutory material from getting inserted into the Ohio Constitution, we need to make the amendment process more difficult. I would support amending Article XVI, Section 1 and Article II, Section 1b to require a three-fifths (60%) or two-thirds (66⅔%) vote, not a simple majority.

Ohio and Kansas legislators want to nullify federal health care

From Ohio Free State:

Ohio State Senators Tim Grendell and Shannon Jones have introduced SJR 7, a State Constitutional Amendment “to prohibit a law or rule from compelling a person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” If adopted by a majority of the electors voting on this proposal at a special election held February 2, 2010, Section 43 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio shall take effect immediately.

SJR 7 would deny the ability of any new law to impose demands, restrictions or penalties on health care choices on Ohioans. Versions of proposed federal health care reform legislation have included insurance coverage mandates, and certain penalties on employers who fail to provide employee health insurance.

SJR 7 states, in part:
(1) A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system

(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

Sen. Grendell introduced Ohio's state sovereignty resolution SJR 13, which is currently languishing in the House State Government Committee. While I am not enthusiastic about adding more statutory material to the Ohio Constitution, it is clear that federal health care reform is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; but it appears from some news reports I have seen that leading Congressmen and Senators are Constitutionally illiterate. In this case, incorporating SJR7 into the Ohio Constitution will make it clear to all that the people of Ohio will support their General Assembly in nullification of federally-mandated health care.

Dion Lefler of the Wichita Eagle reports that Kansas legislators are considering an amendment to their state constitution to nullify federal health care insurance.

In a pre-emptive strike on national health care, conservative state lawmakers and representatives of the "tea party" movement on Tuesday proposed changing the state Constitution to exempt Kansas from federal health insurance mandates.

"This is about ... preserving (patients') right to make their own individual decisions on health care and protecting the doctor-patient relationship, so that the physician and the patient together can make the best decisions," Rep. Peggy Mast, R- Emporia, said at the Wichita kickoff for the proposition, to be known as the "Health Care Freedom Amendment."

Sen. Mary Pilcher Cook, R-Shawnee, said national health care reform legislation will be "harmful to Kansans, robbing them of their liberty to make their own health care decisions without government interference." Sen. Pilcher-Clark also introduced the Kansas state sovereignty resolution.

Kansas Democrats are launching a petition drive in opposition to the proposal.

Adoption of a Constitutional amendment will require a vote of two-thirds of the legislators in each house, and a majority vote of the electors.

Of course, it's not too late to nip health care reform in the bud by urging our U.S. congressmen and senators to oppose it.

No, no, and no -- from another source

The Ohio Freedom Alliance and I are often on the same page, but the voices behind their nos have additional knowledge of their subjects.

More on the People's Constitution Coalition

As reported by Cheryl S. Splain in Wednesday's Mount Vernon News: (black areas are my comments)

MOUNT VERNON — State sovereignty is not a new idea, but it has become more important because of what many perceive to be the continual encroachment by the federal government into states’ affairs. Efforts are under way in Ohio to settle the issue once and for all.

Spearheaded by Mount Vernon resident Michael Young, the Peoples Constitution Coalition of Ohio is working on a proposed sovereignty amendment to the Ohio Constitution. “The purpose of the amendment is to state the specific relationship between the state, people and government,” said Young. “It puts the sovereignty issue into law, and mandates Ohio’s government to protect the state from the federal government.”

The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people.

“States are sovereign over the federal government except for a few items specifically delegated to the federal government,” said Young, using the analogy of a homeowner hiring a plumber.

“You hire him to fix the sink,” said Young, “but he’s not authorized to raid your refrigerator, answer the phone or spank your kids. So, too, with government. When government operates outside of those duties [delegated], we have a right and a duty to hold them accountable.

Nice analogy.

“With the speed that the federal government is moving right now with health care
legislation, cap and trade, and the stimulus programs, it’s moving so quickly people can’t catch their breath to realize what is going on,” he continued. “It’s the duty of the states to protect their citizens from federal abuse.”

So fast, that I hope there will be enough time for the process to be carried out. If the US Senate ratifies the Copenhagen Treaty, we will have to fast-forward to secession.

“As an Ohioan, you should want this kind of protection ... because there’s a lot of abuses that would disappear,” he said. “The federal board of education* is completely unconstitutional because nothing in the federal constitution grants that power. That’s reserved to the states.”

Other areas the federal government is involved with that are unconstitutional, said Young, include gun control laws and forced vaccinations.

Young said there’s no law that requires the Legislature to make sure a bill is constitutional when it is passed.

“To my mind, that is absolutely ludicrous,” he said. “The constitution is the authority; you would assume they would comply with that authority. But there is no language in the constitution that mandates government comply with it.”

The proposed amendment, he said, would remove all of the ambiguity and remove the loophole where ignorance of the constitution is no longer an excuse.

However, as I pointed out Monday, there is a limit on how much a document can do. The Founding Fathers thought the US Constitution put a straitjacket around the federal government. If the will to enforce the Constitution is not present, the words won't matter much.

The coalition is hosting a meeting Saturday, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Senior Citizen Center in Fredericktown, to bring awareness of state sovereignty and the proposed amendment. Doors will open at 9 a.m.; seating is limited.

In addition to Young talking about the proposed amendment, speakers include Dr. Frederick Graves, creator of Jurisdictionary legal self-help program, who will speak on “Rule of law: How to use the mechanisms of law and government to hold government accountable”; Sen. Timothy Grendell, who is backing SCR-13, an Ohio sovereignty resolution, through the Ohio Senate; and Warren Edstrom, co-creator of The Voices of America project, who will discuss how the people of Ohio can have their voices heard by government.

“Our main goals right now are to draft a proposed amendment and simultaneously start organizing the people of Ohio so they are aware of what we are doing,” said Young. “Our meeting Saturday is to help promote building that network.

“People are starting to become aware of this,” he continued. “So far, we have had an acceptance level of 99 percent. People are ready for some positive change for the better.”

The coalition’s goal is to have the amendment on the November 2010 ballot.

As I indicated on Monday, the goals of the People's Constitution Coalition are admirable, but I have some serious qualms about the specifics of their proposed amendments.

* Mr. Young meant Department of Education

People's Constitutional Amendments -- mostly not a good idea

I do not like to write negatively about the work of colleagues who seek to restore our Constitutional liberties, but I have some serious concerns about a series of amendments to the Ohio Constitution being proposed by the People's Constitutional Coalition of Ohio.

The group wants to place some thirteen amendments to the Constitution on the ballot next year, which they believe will help protect the sovereignty of the state from further federal intrusion. The amendment text is too long to detail here; but in general, they want to:
- add a supremacy clause to the Ohio Constitution to make explicit that it is the fundamental law;
- emphasize that the state exists for the people;
- assert that "the state of Ohio shall operate as a free and independent republic within the [United States of America];
- specifically limit the powers of state government;
- explicitly state that laws that are contrary to the Constitution are null and void;
- assert a duty by state officials to protect Ohioans from the abuse of federal powers; and
- make abuses by Ohio officials criminal offenses.

We need to take great care when considering amendments to the Constitution; but unlike the three ballot amendments up this November, the amendments being proposed here are Constitutional law.

The proposal as written suffers from some serious flaws:
- Portions of the proposed amendments duplicate provisions already in the Ohio Constitution, especially Article I, Section 2; Article I, Section 20; Article II, Section 28; and Article IV, Section 2(B)(2)(a)(iii). Their proposed prohibition on compacts and treaties duplicates Article I, Section 10, clauses 1 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution.

- The "free and independent republic" provision will be interpreted by most Ohio voters as secessionist. We're not ready for such strong language -- and if introduced, this phrase alone is likely to sink the whole proposal.

- The sections on protecting Ohioans from federal abuses and establishing "high crimes" for abuses by state officials are asking a lot of a Constitution. As we are learning from current hard experience, a Constitution is only as strong as the will of the people and their elected officials to enforce it.

- Section 12 of the proposal contains this text: "All provisions of this Constitution and Ohio laws, rules, regulations, and other governing provisions shall be created, altered, revised, repealed, interpreted, and enforced to comply with this Article." As written, the section is unenforceable. What they are proposing, in fact, is a rewrite of the entire Ohio Revised Code, an effort that would take several years, and a great deal of legal manpower.


Here is my alternative: two new sections and some transitional provisions to the Ohio Constitution which address the objections stated above much more simply and workably:

ARTICLE I: Bill of Rights
§21. Purpose of the Ohio Constitution

The Ohio Constitution implements the sovereign will of the people of Ohio for the establishment and operation of their government. It constitutes the fundamental controlling instrument upon which all powers and authorities of the state are dependent, and without which the state shall not act. This Constitution is subject only to the Constitution of the United States and all laws and treaties established under, and in compliance with, the Constitution of the United States. Neither the General Assembly nor any official of the State of Ohio, or any of its subdivisions, may establish any law, rule, or regulation that is contrary to the expressed provisions of this Constitution, or of the Constitution of the United States.

ARTICLE II – Legislative--
§15. Purposes Well Defined

The General Assembly shall make no law that does not contain in its introductory text the following in clear and succinct language:
(A) Identification of the specific provisions of this Constitution, which authorize this law.
(B) A statement of the purpose of the law.
(C) If the law is being enacted as an emergency: A clear statement of the emergency, how the law addresses that emergency, and upon what reasonably attainable conditions said emergency will cease.
(D) A date, not more than ten years from enactment, before which the law shall be reconsidered by the General Assembly for revision or repeal.

Transitional Provision (not numbered as a section)
Article II, Section 15, and the following provision shall take effect on the first day of January following their adoption by the people of the State of Ohio in a general election:

The General Assembly shall pass laws providing for the review of all laws, regulations, and ordinances of this State and its subdivisions at the time this provision becomes effective, for the purpose of identifying and repealing those which are found to be obsolete or in conflict with this Constitution. Such review shall be completed within six years of the adoption of this section. The General Assembly shall consider the results of this review, and complete consideration of items recommended for repeal within four years of its receipt of the recommendations.

The “How” of Independence

We Ohioans are a practical people. We have little patience for abstract theories and pie-in-the-sky speculation. With this in mind, readers of The Ohio Republic have patiently waited through 445 postings discussing why we should become independent, with a few postings going over some of the risks – but with nary a mention of how.

The purpose of this post is to provide a starting point for discussion of how Ohio might achieve independence within the next few years. It lacks sufficient detail to be a plan. It assumes that that the economy will continue to go downhill for at least another year, that attempts to consolidate power in the Federal government and to establish a single world currency will continue, and that people will become more discontented with the situation as time goes on. It also assumes that a peaceful resolution is possible. As I wrote yesterday, peaceful resolution may prove to be impossible. An angry mob may attack the Goldman Sachs offices, or the Federal Government might try to manufacture a Kristallnacht in an attempt to silence freedom-loving Americans. However, we have to make our assumptions on the basis of what we know; and right now, I shall assume that the right of peaceful dissent will continue, at least for the next year. I present this as an approach that can work for the people of Ohio. I leave to the peoples of Vermont, Texas, etc., to determine their own approaches.

The first step to independence is absolutely fundamental. A few later steps can be taken; but no effort will succeed without it. From the beginning, we must start thinking like an independent nation. We must think about how Federal policy impacts us, and how we would solve the same problems on our own, given the freedom to do so. We must remember that “Federal Funds” are taxes taken from our own pockets; and that, as I also wrote yesterday, Wall Street has profited at the expense of our retirement plans, college funds, and in too many cases, homes. We can publicly display our willingness to think this way by flying the Ohio flag alone. We can insist on defending our liberties on the basis of the Ohio Constitution, instead of the U.S. Constitution (a right that has been supported by U.S. Supreme Court decisions).

Secondly, we must raise the awareness of our neighbors that Ohio can protect itself from Federal encroachment on our liberties. This can be done by publishing articles that document how the Federal government has expanded its powers far beyond those specified for it in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, to which the Federal Government was limited by the Tenth Amendment. We must ensure that a State Sovereignty Resolution passes the Ohio General Assembly. We also need to publish articles to document how individual rights have been encroached upon by the Federal government in violation of the U.S. Constitution (Every post in The Ohio Republic with the label “Attacks on Constitutional rights” except those relating to Manna Storehouse, cites unconsitutional Federal actions).

Thirdly, we need to clearly define what it is we do believe. How would we strengthen our Constitutional guarantees of liberty, given the experience of the last 222 years? We need to define a philosophy that can easily explain how personal freedom can be maintained in our time.

All of these steps will have to be completed before we can even think about a mass movement or political party! If we do not have public awareness of what we need to do, they will remain content to live with their misconceptions about freedom in the United States.

Once political action becomes a reasonable option, we can talk about petitions, mass demonstrations, amendments to the Ohio Constitution to enable us to assume the powers reserved for independent nations, and the modalities of negotiating (or forcing) independence from the United States. But that is a subject for another day.

In the meantime, we have work to do.

Manna Storehouse Update

I have not reported on Manna Storehouse since the beginning of the year. That was the case (formally known as Stowers v. Ohio Department of Agriculture) in which a food co-operative in rural Lorain County was subjected to a SWAT-style raid in December 2008. The Stowers family is being defended by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law at the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

I had the privilege of hearing the 1851 Center’s director, Maurice A. Thompson, discuss the work of the Center Wednesday evening. I asked him about the status of Manna Storehouse. About four months ago, the defendants, the Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Lorain County Sheriff, filed a motion to take the case to the U.S. District Court of Appeals. The purpose of making it a Federal case is that Article I of the Ohio Constitution contains more stringent guarantees of personal liberties than does the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Thompson anticipates that the Federal Court will return the issue to the State courts, but the Federal courts work slowly, and it may be two or three months before it is returned to an Ohio court.

There is case law to support such a return:

“… [A] State court is entirely free to read its own State’s constitution more broadly than this [the U.S. Supreme] Court reads the Federal Constitution, or to reject the mode of analysis used by this Court in favor of a different analysis of its corresponding constitutional guarantee.” (City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc. [1982] 455 U.S. 283, 293; 102 S.Ct. 1070, 1077; 71 L.Ed.2d 152, 162).

Also, “Individual States may surely construe their own constitutions as more stringent constraints on police powers than does the Federal Constitution.” (California v. Greenwood [1988], 486 U.S. 35, 43; 108 S.Ct. 1625, 1630; 100 L.Ed.2d 30, 39). These two citations are from Maurice A. Thompson, Defending Liberty in Ohio: A Roadmap for Protecting Freedom and Limiting Government with the State Constitution (Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, 2009). This document is not yet available online, but another document on the protections of the Ohio Constitution, Presuming Liberty, can be downloaded as a .pdf file.