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.

State Sovereignty News from Arizona and Ohio

Two items of interest:

The Washington Times reports that the Arizona House is launching an investigation to determine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms violated state law by running Operation Fast and Furious. As you may recall that operation consisted of smuggling firearms out of the United States for the purpose of tracing drug dealers. However, the firearms were lost. Some of them were found in the investigation into the killing of border guard Brian Terry at a crossing in Arizona. This is a courageous example of a state exercising its sovereign right to prevent the federal government from harming its people. The investigative committee is scheduled to produce a report by March 30.

Here in Ohio, two State Senators, Larry Obhof (R-Medina) and Keith Faber (R-Celina) have introduced a State Sovereignty Resolution (SCR 24), similar to HCR 11 and SCR 13 in the previous session. These were introduced in early 2010 as part of a widespread movement to let Washington know that the states are sovereign, and to demand that the Constitutional limitations on federal power be observed. HCR 11 died in committee, largely because Democratic Speaker Armond Budish did not want to allow any resolution to challenge the federal government. Its Senate companion, SCR 13, passed the Senate, but also died in House Committee. As longtime readers of this blog know, I strongly supported such resolutions two years ago. I agree with the spirit of the resolution, and have no objections to it passing to add Ohio to the states standing up for itself; but I suggest that the legislature's time would be better spent passing an Honest Money bill and resisting specific federal encroachments on our state's rights.

So Presidents don't need to know the Constitution now?

I heard this exchange Saturday during the Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire (Los Angeles Times report):

George Stephanopoulos: Governor Romney, so you think that states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

Mitt Romney: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising... states have a right to ban contraception, could it constitutionally be done? We could ask our Constitutionalist here, (motioning over to Ron Paul) uh...

George Stephanopoulos: I'm sure Paul could answer the question, but I'm asking you, do the states have that right or not?

Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Romney went back and forth for several minutes. Mr. Romney eventually made a grudging admission that yes, the states do have that right, but of course, no state is considering it.

So what kind of President do you want? One that is attractive and says what you want to hear (with the risk that he will make a contrary statement that someone else will want to hear), or a President who will obey his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

Virtual buckeye to Sherry Mann.

A concurring opinion about secession

Western Australia has sought independence from Australia since 1933, and has found the doors slammed in its face, in part because the mineral wealth of the West has helped fund government for the rest of the nation. Businessmen there are particularly unsettled by an Australian law imposing a carbon tax, scheduled to take effect this summer. This issue has been brought forward in a piece by Sukrit Subhlok in The National Forum. Like mainstream politicians here in America, the Australian establishment views secessionism as "the work of a lunatic, right-wing fringe in the Liberal Party".

As in America, the constitutionality of secession is debatable; however, Mr. Subhlok makes an important point, echoing my own from Nov. 3:

The legality or otherwise of secession is a moot point. If secession is to occur, it will never happen with the High Court's approval, simply because the court is appointed and funded by the federal government and will therefore tend to rule in favour of Canberra. Hence, in an important sense the legal arguments of Williams and Craven are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The debate over secession must occur primarily in the political rather than the legal arena.

For the sake of argument though, is the legal case against secession really as strong as Williams and Craven say it is? The answer is no. When Australia's colonies agreed to come together as a federation under the Constitution, they did so on the assumption that the federal government would be limited to the powers enumerated in section 51, and that the states would retain their reserved powers. Common-sense, not to mention elementary contractual principles, dictates that if the federal government oversteps its bounds and encroaches into areas of state responsibility then a state is justified in exiting the constitutional compact.

For Americans "section 51" is Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. A literal reading of Article I, Section 8, should make it clear that our federal government has far overstepped its bounds and encroached into areas of state responsibility.

I shall let Mr. Subhok make the closing point:

As more people become aware of the positive effects of secession, let it not be said that it is an idea only supported by the 'loony right'. Secession is an idea whose time has come. Everyone should seriously examine its merits.

Wall Street banks fleece Alabama county government

... and this probably is not an isolated incident, from Rolling Stone (April 15, 2010). The story is intricately detailed, but well worth reading. In fine, it tells the story of how JP Morgan bribed (literally!) and temporarily bankrupted a county government paying interest and other charges for a capital improvement that got dubbed the "Taj Mahal of sewage treatment plants." And in the end, what the county employees and taxpayers got was the, uh, sludge.

I just thought I would throw this in as another example of the Eastern Establishment looting Main Street...

Ohio is still a donor state

The Economist is a British publication that many business people and I have long respected. One other virtue of The Economist is that it is not an American mainstream medium that would therefore subject itself to self-censorship. Therefore, I sit up and take notice when it issues a statistical table of the fiscal money flows between Washington and the states. In The Economist's Daily Chart blog (Aug. 1), the cumulative flows during the 1990-2009 period are documented for each state and Puerto Rico.

Ohio, the state that supposedly decides the course of Presidential elections, finished 7th worst on the list, sending more than $300 billion to Washington in that 20-year period that never came back. Here are the numbers (all figures are in billions)

What Ohio paid in federal taxes 1990-2009:     $1,569.3
What the feds sent back to Ohio 1990-2009:    $1,265.8
Taxes minus spending:                                   $   303.5

Ohio Gross Domestic Product, 2009:                $   462.0
Taxes minus spending as a percentage of
Ohio Gross Domestic Product:                                66%

Ohio has lagged the nation in economic recovery for many years, but has sent the equivalent of its entire output of goods and services for 8 months to DC for no other purpose than to support the federal government and other states.

Let's take this one step further. Assume Ohio's GDP has been essentially flat since 2009. The Fiscal Year 2012 state budget is $26.9 billion, which is 5.8% of the 2009 state GDP. Let's apply that 5.8% to one-twentieth of the $303.5 billion (average annual outflow, $15.1 billion): Do you think that if the State of Ohio had $873 million more per year in the last three or four years, the state budget crisis would have been easier to resolve?

Now, please explain to me again how remaining in the Union is in Ohio's interest? Especially if the purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its people?

Virtual buckeye to John Stewart.

Domestic abuse

I have written before about the Stockholm syndrome, but Daniel Miller of the Texas National Movement has an even more apt comparison. Our relationship with the federal government is like that of an abused wife and mother. Here is his reasoning (reproduced in full):

This is the “question of the day” today. Actually, for me, this has been the question of the day, every day, for 14 years. You see, I get it. Sort of. Well, not really.

See my problem here?

I seem to experience waves of frustration watching the people of Texas dealing with the Federal Government. Personally, I made my conclusion a long time ago that Texas needed to secede and become an independent nation. I also know that many others have arrived at that conclusion as well.
For the 14 years since I arrived at that conclusion I have watched the people of Texas shoved around by a Federal Government drunk on power. They go through a succession of governmental functionaries from one of the two major parties only to wind up with more government, less freedom and more abuse.
Unfortunately for me, although I know the truth and what the solution is, the rest of the people of Texas have not reached the mental and emotional place of safety where I reside.

This leaves me to watch the abuses pile up without the proper response. To get an idea of my daily anguish, let’s paint a mental picture together. Imagine for a moment that you are part of a large family.

You and your siblings are sitting in the living room of the house and your Mother’s current husband, someone who is not your Father, comes in and begins to beat the crap out of your Mother. Your sister starts to cry so he turns his attention to her and starts beating her. Your brother tries to shield your sister and he gets smacked a few times. You speak up and try to shield them all and get

pummeled more than all of them put together. After he beats you, thankfully, he takes the money that you all have been saving from the cookie jar, jumps in his car and heads off to the local watering hole to blow all of the money on booze and other women. Imagine that this happens every day.
I want you to really burn that image in your mind.
Now, imagine that after all of this repeated abuse you go to your Mother and ask her to leave this bastard who is destroying your family. You want her to leave this scum that is slowly killing her, the rest of your siblings and you, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. You want to be saved. You want her to be saved. You want your brothers and sisters to be saved. You want this abuse to end. And it can all end by one decision made by her. You’ve had this conversation with her every time this happens. And each time she and most of your siblings, to your horror, cry or get angry and advocate for HIM.

“He’s just having a hard time right now.”

“He only does it because we don’t act right.”

“He makes all the money. We would be broke if we left.”

“I promised until death do us part.”

“He’s starting to make the changes that I’ve asked.”

Days go by. Weeks go by. Years go by. It occasionally will get better for a short time. But he always returns back to the same old thing and no one leaves.
Let all of that sink in and burn into your brain.

Now you know how I feel.

I recognized the abuse a long time ago. It wasn’t until 14 years ago that I realized that I had the power to stop it. But I am still frustrated. My head tells me that I should have some peace since I know the answer.

However, my heart is screaming because I watch my Mother, my brothers and my sisters abused daily.

Their indecision causes me to wind up on the receiving end of that abuse because I am morally obligated to stand up for them.

I want to know when they are going to stand up for me. When? When I’m dead? When we’re all dead? Then no one will need to stand up for anyone else.

Call me a tortured soul if you wish. At least I’ve been trying to put my finger on what in the hell is wrong with most of you. And I think I may have found my answer.

I started to research what causes people to repeatedly suffer at the hands of abusers and refuse to leave the situation. I found that it is called “Battered Women Syndrome” and it fits more than any explanation I have ever seen.

Abused spouses go through four phases while in an abusive relationship. They are: denial, guilt, enlightenment and responsibility.

Denial is marked by the refusal to admit that there is even a problem. Abusive incidents will be explained to others as “accidents”. Excuses are made for each incident and each time the abused firmly believes it will never happen again.

Guilt is the one that puzzles me the most. The abused takes responsibility for the abuse. The abused feels that they deserve to be beaten because they have defects in their own character and they aren’t living up to the abusers expectations.

Enlightenment is the revelation that the abuse is not an accident or aberration and that it is not the fault of the abused. But the newly enlightened abused believes that the abuser can somehow be “fixed”. The abused is still committed to the relationship and stays with the abuser hoping they can work things out.
Responsibility is when the abused decides that the abuser will not stop, they can’t be fixed, it’s the abusers fault and the abused decided to start a new life free of abuse.

I recognized that I am in the “responsibility” phase. At this moment I knew why I was so frustrated. I knew that until Texas and most of my brothers and sisters got to this phase then I would continue in my frustration.

Frustrating as it may be, I now do only what I know to do.

I plead one more time with my Mother, my brothers and sister. We are abused. It is not our fault. The Federal Government will not change. It will make promises that it will not keep. If it ever stops abusing us, the break will be brief and it will not last. While we have been faithful to the Constitutional marriage of which we are part, it has not. Mother, your children in the Texas Nationalist Movement have stood up for you. Brothers and sisters of Texas, the Texas Nationalist Movement, your blood, your siblings have stood up for you. We have told you that it is time to make a new life. We will survive this but only if we leave.

Mother, brothers, sisters, let us start this new life now. One free of abuse. We can make it together but first we have to make the decision. If not, then I will continue to ask you “what in the hell is wrong with you?”

Virtual buckeyes to DumpDC and Third Palmetto Republic (for the graphic)

We need to set priorities!

Glenn Beck likes to compare President Obama to a magician by saying that we always have to watch what his other hand is doing. The powers that be have thrown so much at the liberty movement in the last year, that it is hard to know where to direct our efforts. This could be intentional. If we split ourselves into many different directions, none of us will be effective. 

One of my most persistent critics likens me to a "gerbil in a wheel, spitting out worthless posts about secession-is-just-around-the-corner almost daily," a comparison I find laughable, but one which could become apt if we fail to focus on priorities. 

As a business analyst, I have to recognize that there are three constraints to every project: time, cost, and people. You cannot cut all three at the same time. If you want something done faster, you need more people, more money, or both. If you cut costs or people, you will probably need more time. 

Applying this to Ohio's liberty movement, we need to ask – among the many urgent needs we have to regain our freedom, which should we tackle first?

I observe that we can express most of our requirements as pairs -- actions needed in Congress that can be complemented or replaced by state actions. I list these pairs below. Note that I am ignoring the state budget and SB 5 because both are certain to pass in some form, most likely in a way that will work in the direction of smaller government.

My question to my readers is, which of the following should we be pursuing first, second, and third? Please comment; even if it is nothing more than "1.x, 2.y, 3.z."

	Actions by Congress	Actions by the State of Ohio
a	Refuse appropriations for the Libyan war.	Governor Kasich to refuse deployment of Ohio National Guard to Libya.
b	Repeal national health care, or "Obamacare."	Nullify mandatory health care in Ohio (legislation).
c	Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank.	Authorize state and local tax payments in gold or silver: "Honest Money."
d	Balance the budget.	Intercept federal taxes (through the Ohio Department of Taxation) pending a state board or legislative ruling on the constitutionality of federal expenses.
e	Repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.	Nullify the use of body scanners and aggressive patdowns in Ohio airports.
f	Modify or repeal federal gun control laws.	Nullify gun control for weapons both made and sold in Ohio (intrastate commerce). (Note: link is to bill in previous General Assembly)
g	Repeal federal drug laws, particularly those related to marijuana.	Nullify federal prohibitions on the use of marijuana as a prescription drug.
h	Repeal federal food laws that affect intrastate commerce in farm produce.	Nullify federal regulation of farm produce both grown and sold in Ohio (Manna Storehouse – but note that Manna Storehouse was an abuse of state power).

Why we should not call a Constitutional Convention

I have discussed this thoroughly before. One of the reasons is that a Constitutional Convention can get out of control, just as the convention to amend the Articles of Confederation did in 1787. The result could be an entirely new Constitution, like that proposed by Rexford P. Tugwell in 1974, called the "Constitution of the Newstates of America." *  In it, you will see that the Federal Government would be given the power to abolish States, reducing them to administrative units with less freedom of action than our counties have today.

* The original link to this document was through the site of an anti-Semitic hate group.  A friend found for me a neutral link to present the same document.

Gallup Poll: Republicans and Democrats mostly agree on cuts in state spending

From Clips & Comment:

Gallup is out with another survey asking what we Americans prefer when it comes to combating state fiscal problems. According to their survey, most of us (65%) respond favorably to cutting or eliminating state programs. Sixty-two percent responded favorably to cutting the number of state employees.

Without much support is borrowing money (30% favor) and raising taxes (32% favor).

Forty-nine percent of respondents favor changes in state collective bargaining laws as a way to trim budgets.

Although Gallup modified their questionnaire from a like survey in February, there is strong evidence that the number of people supporting cuts and program eliminations is on the rise. Another interesting point in the survey is that Democrats and Republicans agree more than they disagree on the proposed budget remedies surveyed. Majorities of respondents from both parties favor program and employee cuts, but they diverge on the union question with only 31% of Democrats supporting changes in state labor laws while 66% of Republicans favor limiting collective bargaining.

Quotation of the day

From Michael Boldin, director of the Tenth Amendment Center, whom I met at the Nullify Now! rally on Saturday:

"One size fits all solutions lead to a situation where having a bad leader screws everyone. Decentralization allows a huge range of political, economic and religious viewpoints to all live together in peace..."

Florida considering withdrawal from federal Medicaid program

For most states, Medicaid is the most crippling financial burden that they face. What if the states could tell the feds to keep their money and still run a program less expensively? The Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville reports that State Senator Joe Negron (R-Stuart) is suggesting just that:

The statement by Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, underscored how serious members of the Senate say they are about reining in costs of the program, which provides health-care for low-income patients. Medicaid is expected to cost the state more than $22 billion in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1.

While Negron shied away from the phrase "opt out," he was apparently referring to a provision of the federal law that allows states to leave the program altogether.

"If the federal government elects not to allow us to manage the program the way we believe is in Florida's best interests, then we'll operate our Medicaid program with our resources," Negron said.

If the state were to leave the Medicaid program, it would lose all federal funding, which covers more than half of the current system's bills. Negron said the state would use its own portion of projected Medicaid spending to provide what benefits it could, giving priority to "those on Medicaid that we believe are the most vulnerable and need the most assistance from us."

Negron stressed that he believes it was unlikely that the federal government would reject a waiver to institute the new plan. But he said the bill set to be rolled out Thursday would contain provisions that would limit the program to the what the state could fund if the federal government said no.

"We can't allow the federal government to commandeer our budget," he said.

End the hypocrisy

Charlie Earl's Facebook page is dotted with daily three-word mottoes. I'm going to borrow the technique for one day and say, end the hypocrisy.

Update Feb. 2:  Lew Rockwell weighs in on the Republican hypocrisy of saying we can't be forced to buy health care, but can be forced to pay Social Security and other people's healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid). He has a point, and suggests that we challenge House Speaker John Boehner on the point.

Most of the problems America faces today are the result of governmental hypocrisy, particularly on the federal level:

• President Obama says he wants to help the little guy, but continues to support the Federal Reserve Bank and large transfers of wealth to New York bankers.
• They say they want to increase jobs, while pursuing stimulus packages that kill them.
• The Congress says it wants to reduce the deficit, while taking less than baby steps to do so. The Republicans originally said they wanted to cut federal spending by $100 billion (a paltry figure when the deficit is $1,800 billion (= $1.8 trillion) -- now they are talking about a whole $50 billion. Chump change at the federal level.
• The Eastern liberals want to make our political debate more civil, while they polarize us with phony charges of "racism."

And, worst of all (at the moment):

• We tell the world that we support "democracy," while we prop up ruthless dictators like Hosni Mubarak. 

We will not begin to recover until the feds get the message. Right now, they are like children holding their ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

So we have to get their attention, and the way to do that is at the state level:

• Nullify everything in sight that the feds do that is not in strict conformance with the Constitution.
• Promote the use of silver in everyday transactions, which will destroy the power of the Federal Reserve Bank without any federal action being taken.
• Speak freely, as long as we genuinely believe it is the truth. We don't need anyone's permission -- not the feds', not the Southern Poverty Law Center's, not some academic's -- to say what we think.

We must also get Congress to eliminate all military aid to other countries immediately. End humanitarian aid to countries where we know it is fostering corruption. Get out of the Middle East and Afghanistan, and begin withdrawing from Europe and the rest of the world (with the possible exception of South Korea -- and I'm not completely sure about that).

The purpose of our government is to support the lives, liberties, and opportunities of the American people. Nothing else. We have strayed far from that purpose, but it is our duty as citizens to insist that the federal government rededicate itself to that purpose.

If we cannot do this through many states nullifying many laws, then it will be time for us to declare independence -- but first, we must become more independent in our hearts. And the first step toward that is to demand that our governments

End the hypocrisy!

Montana legislator wants to add teeth to state's firearms nullification bill

In April 2009, the Montana legislature passed a bill that exempted from federal law all firearms both manufactured and sold within the state, which is not interstate commerce within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

Now, Bob Unruh at WorldNet Daily reports that State Sen. Greg W. Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls) has introduced SB 114, which would require federal employees to obtain the county sheriff's permission to  make arrests, searches, and seizures. With some exceptions, federal officials violating this act would be subject to prosecution. The act specifically states that federal employees do not have the authority of a county sheriff within Montana. The act applies to all federal law enforcement activities within the State of Montana, except on federal lands. It is not limited to firearms enforcement. If a county sheriff is under investigation, the federal official must obtain permission from the state attorney general.

Mr. Unruh notes that this is an example of a "sheriffs first" bill, which is being talked about in several states.

This bill is downright gutsy. It will be interesting to see how the legislative process plays out on this bill. Stay tuned.

(Because of the time required to maintain a status report of legislation in other states, I will not be keeping a spreadsheet of state sovereignty and nullification resolutions this year. Readers desiring this information should check the Tenth Amendment Center site).

The 2011 Legislative Program

Last year, we set five goals for the 128^th General Assembly:

1.  Gradually repeal the Ohio income tax (HB 400).
2.  Redirect federal tax funds to the Ohio Department of Taxation (on the drawing board, details).
3. Enact an Honest Money initiative (on the drawing board).
4. Enact a Constitutional amendment to nullify mandatory participation in a federal health care program (HJR 3, SJR 7, HB 489, SB 244).
5. Nullify federal law for weapons manufactured in Ohio (HB 315).

The partisan division of the General Assembly between a Democratic House and a Republican Senate resulted in the smallest legislative output in many years. In addition, legislative research on the second goal has failed so far to produce a practical solution to the problem.

We are no longer advocating the state sovereignty resolutions. They were valuable two years ago as educational tools to help the legislators and the people understand the concept of state sovereignty; but they were symbolic in character. Largely spurred by the Tea Parties and the federal health care initiative, we have moved on to asserting that sovereignty through nullification bills.

Here are the goals we recommend for the 129^th General Assembly:

     

1. Gradually repeal the Ohio income tax.
2. Enact an Honest Money act to facilitate the use of gold and silver in payment of taxes, thus encouraging their use in everyday transactions.
3. Enact a Constitutional amendment to nullify mandatory participation in a federal health care program, which would accomplish the objective of the Ohio Project’s petition campaign.
4. Nullify federal law for weapons manufactured in Ohio.
5. Rebuild the organized state militia, to protect Ohioans from illegal immigration, terrorism, and egregious military actions against the people of Ohio by the federal government.

Items 1 and 3 will strengthen our state’s economy. The other items are necessary to protect the rights of our people, and are critical elements to making good a declaration of independence, if all else fails.

Additional information on pending liberty-related legislation is available in the Ohio Liberty Council site.

Platform of The Ohio Republic

Readers who have followed The Ohio Republic through more than a few posts understand the principles that guide it, but I thought it might be helpful to state it as a platform:

1. The Ohio Republic is committed to individual freedom: spiritual, political, and economic. When considering policy positions, we keep this end in mind. Our most general rule is WWJD? In spiritual matters, “what would Jesus do?” in political and economic matters, “what would Jefferson do?”
2. The Ohio Republic seeks government that is decentralist, which may be loosely defined as a system in which there is little or no federal government, little state government, and as much local government as the people desire; but accountable to the state for corruption and violations of basic human and political rights by local officials.
3. The Ohio Republic being, of course, Ohioan, seeks practical approaches to problem solving. Too often, libertarian thinkers get lost in a fantasy world created by the ideology. Solutions are not practical if they ignore political and economic realities, or if they fail to take the dark side of human nature into account.
4. The Ohio Republic specifically rejects anarchism. While government must be strictly limited, it remains necessary to protect the people from criminal use of force and from fraud. Government can promote the liberties of the people effectively and efficiently, by returning to Constitutional principles and by replacing the proactive (administrative) compliance model with a passive (judicial) model. (I shall explain this principle further in my book, Governing Ourselves, to be published later this year).
5. The Ohio Republic, consistent with its commitment to decentralism, presses the Ohio General Assembly to assert the rights of Ohioans and of our state government against unconstitutional intrusion by the federal government. If we are to protect our rights and remain in the union, we must demand that our Ohio General Assembly interpose in those instances where federal law exceeds the limits set in the United States Constitution. (This is more commonly called nullification)
6. The Ohio Republic advocates Ohio’s independence from the United States as a last resort, when all efforts to reason with the federal government through the standard political process and nullification have failed. There is no question in our mind, based on the experience of other nations, that Ohio is perfectly viable as an independent Republic; provided that its government and people have taken certain preparatory steps prior to the declaration of independence. Prominent among these are the revitalization of the organized state militia, and the establishment of a currency based on silver or gold.
7. The Ohio Republic draws on our Judeo-Christian tradition to support its emphasis on personal freedom, not to proselytize for any religious belief; but because the Bible has documented a way for a people to live in political and economic freedom, as long as the people accept individual responsibility for their own actions.

Mandatory health care deemed unconstitutional

I am breaking my own hiatus to amplify what everyone has undoubtedly heard, that the Federal District Court for Eastern Virginia has ruled as unconstitutional section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly and inelegantly known as "Obamacare"). What is newsworthy is that the decision itself is a very clear and readable statement expressing the limits of Congressional power under the Constitution. My .pdf link to the text is provided by the Wall Street Journal.

Judge Henry E. Hudson acknowledges that the case will be appealed two more times -- to the Fourth District Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court of the United States; but because the issues were so clearly those of law, and because of the clarity of this decision, there is much room for hope that his ruling will be sustained.

If you do not have the patience to read the entire ruling, start with section VII on page 32 and read the remainder.

Why we need to repeal the 17th Amendment

My fellow Ohio blogger Brian has been running a blog for some time dedicated to the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. I have to admire his tenacity -- to regularly post to and maintain a blog on such a limited subject. His point is that the states would have a stronger hand against federal tyranny if we returned to the original system of having the state legislatures elect the U.S. Senators, instead of them being elected directly by the people. That way, the states as states would have a stake in how the federal government is run. You can be sure, at the very least, that Senators elected by state legislators would end unfunded mandates on state governments. Right now.

In today's post, Brian uses the Food Safety Bill (S.510) to explain how the U.S. Senate has been rigged to favor corporate special interests, and presents a convincing argument based on today's news for repealing the 17th Amendment. It is well worth your time to read.

Update Dec. 7: Brian posted a comment in his own blog that is worth reposting here:

Thanks Harold. It's been up and down over the years but the blogging keeps me partially focused on the shenanigans in the US Senate.

Getting this repealed is a tough fight, but at least for now I hope we are waking people up to the origins of the US Constitution and the creation of Congress and the role the US Senate once had.

But even if the repeal did happen we would still need to make a modification and add a recall provision that was left out of the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. That would put the states back into the Federal Government and restore the 10th Amendment.

Virginia may be on to something...

According to Rebellion, Virginia's top three elected officials have shown support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow a decision by two-thirds of state legislatures to override federal law.

The movement for the so-called "Repeal Amendment" could gather momentum next year, as state legislatures that shifted from blue to red after the November elections begin their deliberations....

Now this is one way we could restore our freedom and preserve the Union! Question is, will Congress have the guts to present it to the states? (I know the Article V convention is technically an alternative, but it is a dangerous one).