Craig Becker Is Now the Deciding Vote on the NLRB by Craig Covello

This week Congress has adjourned for Easter recess. Obama has used this opportunity to make 15 presidential appointments that were blocked by Senate Republicans. This maneuver is part of the politics of Washington and was also used by President Bush. Obama's actions, however, are notable because one of the appointments installed SEIU lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It is generally acknowledged that attorney Becker has radical pro-union views. His views are so radical, in fact, that all 41 Senate Republicans and some Senate Democrats voted against the nomination last month which left the president eight votes short of the 60 needed. Recently, these same 41 Senate Republicans sent a letter to the president specifically asking that Becker not be appointed during the recess. The US Chamber of Commerce agrees. Randel Jackson, the Chamber' s senior vice president, issued the following statement:

"This is the first time since 1993 that the Chamber has opposed a nominee to the NLRB. The Chamber's opposition is based on Mr. Becker's prolific writings, which suggest a radical view of labor law that flies in the face of established president and case law and as far outside the mainstream".

Obviously, Obama disregarded these concerns. He issued a statement of his own:

"The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refused to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis".

Now Craig Becker will be the deciding vote on all issues taken up by the NLRB. Is this really a cause for concern? Yes it is. The NLRB was established by Congress in 1935 to administer the National Labor Relations act. It is chartered for governing the relationships between unions, employees and private sector employers in a fair and unbiased manner. It guarantees the rights of employees to either accept or refuse unionization efforts.

It also is chartered with resolving unfair labor practices committed by either labor organizations or employers. Again, it is supposed to be unbiased. Currently, the five-member board only has two acting members, and has been able to function for some time in this mode.

Now enter Craig Becker, who is Obama's hand-picked nominee to bring fair and unbiased judgment regarding labor relations. Let's find out something about him -

He is currently employed by the Service Employers International Union (SEIU) as Associate General Counsel.

He believes that employers do not have the right to alert authorities of illegal union activity during election campaigns.

He believes that only employees and union representatives should be heard regarding questions of voter eligibility, campaign contact and the results of elections.

He believes that employers should have no role in the unionization process whatsoever.

He does not believe in secret union ballots.

He wrote in 1993 law review article proclaiming that traditional notions of democracy should not apply in union elections.

He wrote that employers should be barred from attending NLRB hearings about elections.

He believes that employers should not argue against unionization on their own company property, and believes that employers should be prohibited from requiring employees to attend company meetings to discuss unions for any reason.

He believes that no employees should be able to opt out of union representation or paying union dues.

He's written extensively protesting several NLRB decisions and believes they should be reversed.

He was a member of Pres. Obama's transition team for the Department of Labor while still employed by the SEIU and AFL-CIO.

And here's the best part. He was a lawyer working on behalf of ACORN, which is linked to numerous instances of voter fraud.

But let's hear some quotes from Mr. Becker himself:

“On these latter issues employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case, even though Board rulings might indirectly affect their duty to bargain.”

“Similarly, employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct."

"they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct. On the questions of unit determination, voter eligibility, and campaign conduct, only the employee constituency and their potential union representatives should be heard.”

“Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.”

I don't think I'm disturbed as much about Craig Becker as I am about Obama. Becker is a hired gun paid to represent very powerful union bosses. I understand that he believes he should do whatever it takes to push his agenda on behalf of his clients, just as any lawyer would. No, I'm much more concerned about Obama. The American people did not elect a President to exclusively represent union interests. They did not elect Obama to create a fourth branch of government called SEIU. It's been two months since the State of the Union address in which Obama proclaimed "that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs". Does Obama really think that the American people have a memory of less than 8 weeks? Unbelievable.

For more information:

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/03/29/obama-uses-recess-appointments-for-nlrb-and-other-blocked-nominations/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/becker-hope-bipartisanship-out

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2010/03/union-hack-becker-gets-recess-appointment.html

http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2010/03/obamas-radical-friends-appointments.html

http://biggovernment.com/brjohnson/2010/02/03/why-you-should-know-about-craig-becker-and-why-you-need-to-be-worried/

http://wyattemployment.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/senate-help-committee-approves-craig-beckers-nomination-on-a-party-line-vote/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124226652880418035.html

http://conservativecowgirl.typepad.com/blog/2010/02/hatch-gravely-concerned-by-nlrb-nominee-craig-becker.html

Copyright 2010 by Craig Covello.  Used with Permission.  All Rights Reserved

In closing, I would like to ad a heartfelt thanks to Craig and Ira for keeping this column going while I'm on location shooting a movie.  Hopefully, I will have time to write an article myself shortly.  In the worst case scenario, I will be back in Los Angeles in about six weeks.

Iowa Town Changes Name of Good Friday

This is the ultimate insult to Christianity.  This must be stopped.

The Course of History by Ira Schwartz

So it’s the day after the day after and you know what? The sun came up on both days just like it’s done for the last 5 million or so years. When the President signed his healthcare bill The United States of America had the first “Universal Healthcare bill” in our history. To all of those people who are celebrating I can only say “You should have been careful what you wished for.” To those who are on the other side of the coin Winston Churchill said it best.

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

So the fight will go on. As we speak, at least 13 state attorneys general filed suit against the federal government. The states that are definite are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington. One of the things they claim is that the federal government does not have the authority to force its citizens to buy goods and services they do not want. Constitutional scholars are split over this issue. Some say that Federal Law trumps States Rights. Others think that there is a very distinct possibility that the Supreme Court might say that where you have a freedom secured by a state constitution that it might warrant protection, even against a federal statute. Regardless, overall 34 states are lining up to file suit. That’s more than half the Union.

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, in an interview with the AP compared this to the Medical Marijuana confusion. "To me what that indicates is when there are enough people refusing to comply with the federal government and enough states passing laws that also refuse to comply, it's very difficult for the federal government to enforce their laws."

So even though the Bill has been signed into law, how its statutes will be enforced remains as fuzzy as how it will be paid for. After all they can’t throw all of us in jail.

But this bill is not all bad. There are numerous good things included in the 2000 plus pages of dribble.

1) People may no longer be denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

2) There will no longer be a lifetime financial cap on insurance payouts

3) Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop policy holders because they get sick

4) Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to arbitrarily raise rates.

5) Children will be able to stay on their parents policy until 26.

 

I’m sure those of you who have read the bill can come up with a few more.

Lita Epstein, noted author, has done a well thought out breakdown of winners and losers of this new bill. It cuts through a lot of the minutia and explains it in plain English. The link below will take you there.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/03/23/health-care-reform-are-you-a-winner-or-a-loser/

It appears now that the mid-term elections in November will be the real litmus test for “We the people”. The Democrats publicly think November will be no big deal. They feel they will lose some seats but keep the majority. Maybe. All I know is here in California, Barbara Boxer, normally a shoe in for re-election is now dead even with her Republican adversary. Is it a sign of things to come? We’ll have to wait to see. As of Monday March 23rd a Rasmussen poll indicates 31% of the nations voters approve of Barack Obama while 41% of the nation disapproves. His approval rating is up 2% from the week before. But it’s still clear a majority of the nation is not happy. The real question is can the Republicans turn this unhappiness into Republican votes? That will depend on how the GOP handles itself in the next 7 months.

For the last few weeks a quote by Thomas Jefferson has been running through my head….

“A government big enough to supply you with everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.... The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases.”

And at least all of us can agree on one thing; the size of government has grown under the present administration. Will the course of history show Barack Obama as a dismal failure or the President that started the United States on the path to affordable Universal Healthcare for its people? Will the course of history show Barack Obama as the destroyer or savior of the Democratic Party? I guess only time will answer those questions. But one thing is certain, no president since Abraham Lincoln has divided this great country of ours more than Barack Obama. And if the Republicans do gain the majority in the house and senate on November 2nd you can be sure real legislative grid lock will begin on November 3rd.

As a “post script” I want to add a short note of a personal nature. A good friend and fellow writer Craig Covello has decided it is time for him to lay down his pen and no longer continue his blog “Obama White House Diaries.” He is not giving up the fight just giving his hands a rest from all that typing. You see Craig has managed over the last year to turn out at least an article a day on what’s happening in the present administration. His articles were always fair, insightful and extremely well written. From time to time Craig even allowed Frank and I to publish several of them on our website. They always seemed to ignite a healthy debate.

D.H. Lawrence said it best. "When genuine passion moves you, say what you've got to say, and say it hot." Craig managed to capture that passion in every article. I hope in the near future he decides to pick up the pen again because there appears to still be a lot that needs to be written about. Until then his writings will be missed by fans and friends alike.

The address of his website is http://www.obamawhitehousediaries.com/. Please go there and read some of his work. I promise you will not be disappointed.

© 2010 by Ira Schwartz. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved.

12 Taxes in Health Care Law Violate Obama’s Pledge Not to Increase Taxes on Households Earning Less than $250,000

This is an article that must be read.  It simply says it all and shows how truthful our president is to the American public.

This bill truly is about redistribution of the wealth.

Frank

It Really Doesn't Matter by Craig Covello

By now you know that the House Democrats succeeded in passing the Senate's version of the health care bill with a vote of 219-212. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare.

But that doesn't matter, because there was enough force exerted by the Obama administration that the votes fell into line. Some could argue that the bill passed because Barack Obama made a deal with Bart Stupak involving an executive order prohibiting federally funded abortion in exchange for his vote.

But that doesn't matter, because some pundits believe that the Executive Order is easily countermanded and was only used as a strategy to give Bart Stupak credibility when he voted for Obama care. It also turns out Stupak would have voted for Obama care all along, regardless of the abortion language.

Here are Bart Stupak's statements while speaking in Cheboygan Michigan in 2009:

"Let's say they give us our amendment. Let's say we have an amendment. 3200 is on the floor on November 6 and the offered amendment says no public funding of abortion. It's been the law of the land for many many decades, and we lose that vote. Let's say we lose it. 218 wins. Let's say we get 217. And we lose it. Would I vote against health care? If I had a chance to vote my conscience on it, I probably would not. I probably would still vote for the health care bill at the end of the day."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr68joWr1E&feature=player_embedded

So it appears that most of Congressman Stupak's recent rhetoric was simply theater.

What we are left with is a $1 trillion new healthcare entitlement for every American, regardless of their ability to pay. The president has said that this legislation is "historic". He's right. This is the first time that the federal government has been given the power to dictate what you must buy if you're a United States citizen. This new "entitlement" will attempt to be funded by only 50% of the taxpayers who actually pay federal income taxes, but will generate serious budget deficits over the next 10 years. To pour even more gasoline on the situation, Moody's believes it will downgrade the United States AAA rating. This will make the cost of borrowing even more expensive for the federal government, which in turn, throws the CBO's very optimistic numbers out the window.

But that doesn't matter, because National Public Radio published an article titled "Obama: health care bill about nations character, not cost". Others in congress agree. Earlier this week, Congressman Tom Perriello (D-VA) said:

“The only way to get congress to balance the budget is to give them no choice… whether it’s balanced budget acts or pay-as-you-go legislation, the only thing -- if you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing.”

We are also left with a broken Congressional process. Budget reconciliation was used to implement policy which will fundamentally change the United States of America. This is in clear violation of congressional rules.

But that doesn't matter. Last week, Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings of Florida had this to say about Congressional rules:

"There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something... All this talk about rules... when the deal goes down... we make em up as we go along."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHTJSu_2Lk

He's right. The Democratic legislature now knows it can force progressive agendas against the will of the majority of the American people, at least through November of this year when elections may turn the tide.

But that doesn't matter, because many in Congress have been promised federal jobs after they lose their elected seat. The list includes Congressmen Bart Gordon and John Tanner of Tennessee as well as Congresswoman Suzanne Komas of Florida.

Those who are simply retiring also have no reason to care about the wrath of their constituents. Congressional retirement benefits allow them to be vested after five years of service. A full pension is available to Congressmen 62 years of age with five years of service; 50 years or older with 20 years of service or 25 years of service at any age. Try getting that in the private sector.

It seems that each month there are new scandals regarding Congressional bribes, payoffs and evasion of taxes.

But that doesn't matter. Obama still has plenty of Democratic politicians to throw under the bus if the heat gets turned up. He also seems to have total control over Erik Holder's Justice Department, which refuses to investigate potential criminal issues if they conflict with the progressive agenda of the White House.

So it begs the question, does anything really matter at this point? Congress has demonstrated that they can make the rules up as they go along. They know that they can disregard the will of their constituents. They know that even without a supermajority, they can use budget reconciliation to avoid open, honest debate and compromise with Republicans. The president has gone even further with this progressive ideology by saying that the United States Constitution is basically a "charter of negative liberties". He believes that it is flawed because it throttles unlimited federal government control over the citizens.

Yesterday's vote was not about health care reform. It was a test to determine how far a small group of progressives in this country can push against the rest of us, both traditional liberals and conservatives alike. Obama has just socialized one sixth of our economy against the will of the American people. Does anyone really think that the Obama White House is going to stop now? Of course not. They are just getting warmed up. Obama is well on his way to fulfilling his campaign promise of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America".

So my message to Conservatives, Moderates and even traditional Liberals is this: It just doesn’t matter. Well, unless of course you think your vote matters. In that case, do something about it in November.

Copyright 2010 by Craig Covello.  Used with Permission.  All Rights Reserved

Special Editorial: Repeal

Special Editorial: Repeal

Posted using ShareThis

Polling Numbers You Can Believe In by Craig Covello

Yesterday, Rasmussen Reports published the latest presidential approval index. This index is the sum of two numbers, those that strongly approve minus those that strongly disapprove of the president's performance. You may recall that Obama scored negative 15 on January 3. It dropped to negative 19 on February 22. As of yesterday, it stands at negative 20.

Clearly these presidential approval index numbers are not good, but let's look at it from a different vantage point using simple approval percentages. When Obama took office, 65% of Americans approved of his job performance, which technically had no track record at the time. Today, that approval rating has dropped to 45%. In fact, this number has dropped faster for Obama than any other president in his first year in office.

Still, polling numbers are similar to statistics. They can be easily manipulated to support a variety of agendas, both pro and con, depending upon the questions asked and the time frame involved, So let's put this into historical context. The Wall Street Journal published presidential approval ratings from 1946 through 2006. The results may surprise you.

It becomes obvious that Obama's approval, which ranges between 65% and 45%, looks about average when compared to the huge swings experienced by several past presidents. So what conclusion can we draw? Not much, unless you consider that our liberal Congress's approval rating has dropped to 16%. This is only two points above the record low of 14% that Gallup poll measured in July 2008. It begs the question of how the president's approval rating can be 45% while Congress stands at 16%? Some would argue that people are upset with the Republicans, but polls show that a majority of Americans do not agree with the Democrat's liberal agenda, particularly with respect to the pending health care legislation. Here some other possibilities to consider:

There are still a lot of people in this country that are not paying attention to what the president says, who he surrounds himself with and his ideology, which appears to include a disdain for the United States Constitution.

That same population may be clinging to Obama's campaign promise of "hope and change". Reality has not set in yet.

People are desperate for answers and are looking for help from the government regarding their own financial situation. They are not interested in ideology, the Constitution, legal process or history.

That last point was illustrated yesterday when I flew myself to Oakland airport for a business meeting. During the trip, I had the opportunity to talk to a guy named Angelo who drives the courtesy van which took me to my final destination. Angelo is a gentleman in his 60s. He immigrated to this country years ago and seems to be "old-school" regarding his politics and his work ethic. He believes in self-reliance, family and most of the other traditional American values that seem to be under assault today. I spoke to him about all the rancor surrounding the proposed health care legislation in Washington. He admitted that he was in favor of Obama care. As we discussed his reasoning, a clearer picture developed. Angelo does not get any information from the Internet. I assume most of what he knows about politics is based on newspaper articles and television. He's not interested in the federal deficit and doesn't pay much attention to how much the United States spends on interest rates in order to borrow a dollar. He didn't have much to say about the unethical behavior of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or dozens of others in Congress. No, Angelo is concerned about the rising cost of his own health insurance and how it has impacted his paycheck.

I can't blame him, but here's the point: People still believe that Obama has their best interests at heart and will provide for them in areas of their life that they think are beyond their ability to control. This view suggests a real desperation among our citizenry. It's easy to vilify a large group like Congress, but it becomes harder to objectively criticize a charismatic president when people believe that he is their last hope. When you have that mindset, it's difficult to accept that this president will only help you in exchange for relinquishing your liberties and God-given rights. This is dictatorship 101. And it works.

President Obama's approval ratings will remain higher than congress's ratings until those of us still in denial finally realize that all the campaign promises have been broken and they are financially and emotionally worse off under this president and then they were under the last president. It may take another year or two, but that realization will occur. When it does, Obama will exit his presidency in similar fashion to Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. They all had approval ratings at or below 30% when leaving office. Those are the polling numbers we can believe in.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/obama-gallup-diapproval-climbs.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126809/Obama-Approval-Rating-Lowest-Yet-Congress-Declines.aspx?CSTS=alert

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Copyright 2010 by Craig Covello.  Used with Permission.  All Rights Reserved

NYTimes: This Federalism Thing Seems to Be Catching On | Virginia Tenth Amendment Center

Good Article about the 10th Amendment.

NYTimes: This Federalism Thing Seems to Be Catching On Virginia Tenth Amendment Center

'Uglier and uglier' - NYPOST.com

This shows the ultimate disgrace of the Health Care debacle. And, who has to say it, the New York Post of all places!


'Uglier and uglier' - NYPOST.com

Why Democrats Don't Care about $9.7 Trillion Debt by Dennis Prager on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

Great Article by Dennis Prager, explaining the goals of the Far Left and why they don't care about bankrupting the country.


Why Democrats Don't Care about $9.7 Trillion Debt by Dennis Prager on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

In Praise of the Rotation of Power

Great Article!

In Praise of the Rotation of Power

Democrats Put Some Teeth into the Revised Health Care Senate Bill by Craig Covello

The Obama White House has been actively working on reforming our system of health care insurance in this country for over a year now, and I am sure we are all worn out by the prolonged conversation. It's been a juggernaut chronicled by procedural missteps, back-room deals, blatant misrepresentations and special tax exemptions for the unions. All this was topped off with the outrageous proclamation that federal control over our American medical system will allow us to add 30 million new enrollees while reducing costs because of "government efficiency". When Nancy Pelosi failed to get the votes she needed, many thought this health care "reform" being pushed by the Obama administration was dead, but as this web site chronicled on February 22, it was resurrected. Obama has personally taken ownership of the new health care proposal and predictably it will even cost more than it might have under Pelosi's efforts. You may already know the details, but let's just point out a few highlights:

• Despite all the rhetoric regarding the bipartisan health-care summit intentions to introduce new ideas, Democrats have simply dusted off the failed Senate health-care bill and made a few changes. It's essentially the same bill without the "public option" but would increase spending significantly while exercising even more control.

• The new bill will control insurance prices using a seven-member panel instead of letting free market forces control costs and drive innovation. It effectively will turn the medical insurance industry into just another heavily regulated utility. What you may not know is that all 50 states already have their own specific laws requiring insurance companies to justify premium increases, so this is an attempt to concentrate power at the federal level which is consistent with the philosophies of this administration. If you don't like the way this panel administers its policies, there is no place left to go.

• The new bill would eliminate favoritism towards Nebraska. You may remember the hundred million dollar "cornhusker kickback" which was a bribe to buy Sen. Ben Nelson's vote. Nebraska will no longer be favored. Instead, this kickback will be applied to every single state by financing all new Medicaid spending through 2017 using 100% federal funding. Previously, states shared some of the funding responsibility with the federal government. The net result, however, is that the money has to come from the taxpayers regardless of how the funds are administered.

The Obama administration is pushing for use of the reconciliation process to force the bill through Congress. As explained earlier in this column, this process would only require 51 votes instead of the normal 60 votes needed under the Senate rules. Reconciliation was introduced in 1974 in order to limit the debate regarding specific dollar amounts in the federal budget. It was never intended to be used as a vehicle for forcing new legislation. This abuse of power was also exercised by George W. Bush when he used reconciliation to push legislation concerning 2003 tax cuts, the tax increase prevention and reconciliation act of 2005 and the deficit reduction act of 2005. At that time, Democrats were incensed, but now Harry Reid was quoted as saying that Republicans "should stop crying about reconciliations as if it has never been done before". Apparently, he and his fellow Democrats did not always feel this way when it didn't serve their interests. Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmpLVcrOYxk

It is clear that the differences in ideologies between Democrats and Republicans have never been so clearly demonstrated as with health care reform. What may be less clear is the hypocrisy in thinking that liberals represent enlightenment while conservatives are of lesser intelligence. Case in point. When Republican Congressman Eric Cantor brought the 2400 page Senate bill to the health-care summit in order to reinforce his position, the president criticized him for using it as a "prop". Democratic Congressman Louise Slaughter, however, used a prop of her own in order to tell a story of how one constituent actually wore her dead sister's false teeth because she could not afford her own set of dentures. You guessed it. Slaughter brought the borrowed dentures and waived them around for "show and tell". I'm not kidding.

Obama's healthcare plan may have teeth after all, and will probably bite us (you know where).

Details:

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/obamacare-summit-sham-more/

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100222/D9E19OD80.html

© 2010 by Craig Covello All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Dissent by Ira Schwartz

After my last article I became embroiled in several heated discussions, one ending up in a debate about dissent and how it has become ugly and personal. I do not prescribe to that belief.

We all know that this great country of ours was founded on dissent. One of the main flashpoints in pre revolution America was the “Stamp Act of 1765”. “The Stamp Act” was a tax placed on printed materials such as legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. This tax was put into place to pay for Great Britain’s large military expense in the colonies. Needless to say it didn’t sit very well with the American colonists. “Taxation without representation” was first coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750 referring to this very tax. What followed pales the worst demonstrations of today. Tax officials were hung in effigy, than the dummies were burned in a mock funeral fires. Several tax officials had their homes looted and destroyed then were stoned by the crowds when they tried to stop. In Massachusetts several were dragged by representatives of the Sons of Liberty to the now famous elm tree and forced to resign; which they did happily. Violent attacks continued in New York where a crowd of two thousand strong looted the Governors house. Rhode Island saw similar protests. Needless to say the “Stamp Act” was never really enforced but it served as one of the catalysts that lead to The Revolution.

In the early 1800’s Americans protested the impressing of American seaman by the British. These protests, sometimes quite violent, helped fueled the fire that eventually became the war of 1812. After the war Americans took up the most important issues since the revolution, an issue which further molded this country into the great nation it is today, slavery. Slavery was an issue that had been smoldering since the revolutionary war and was to mark one of the most bloody and violent times in our history. Even today the scars left over from the Civil War are quite evident in certain parts of our country. The Civil War was dissent taken to its worst…open warfare. Over six hundred thousand Americans would die before it saw its bloody end.

In the 1900’s you had Eugene V. Debs who made an anti-war speech and was arrested under the “Espionage Act of 1917”. He was convicted, sentenced to serve ten years in prison, but President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence on December 25, 1921.

The “Women’s Suffrage” movement was also marred by violence. On March 3rd, 1913 the Woman’s Movement held a large parade in Washington DC. Five to eight thousand turned up for the march. However the onlookers numbering close to half a million were not all in favor of women’s rights. According to About.com many were angry opponents of suffrage, or were upset at the march's timing. President Wilson’s inauguration was scheduled for the very next day. Some hurled insults; others hurled lighted cigar butts. Some spit at the women marchers; others slapped them, mobbed them, or beat them.

The parade organizers had obtained the necessary police permit for the march, but the police did nothing to protect them from their attackers. Army troops from Fort Myer were called in to stop the violence. Two hundred marchers were injured.

Then there was Prohibition, the protests for and against World War One, World War Two, Korea and Vietnam. And perhaps the defining issue of the last century…The Civil Rights Movement. All had their share of violence and all were necessary to move this country forward.

Theodore Roosevelt said it best:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else.”

So when you complain about today’s protests being ugly and disgusting you can see we don’t hold a candle to the passions of past generations. Lies and half truths have always been a part of politics and always will. And it is true that they sometimes if not always show up in very public demonstrations and debates. But it is up to each of us to separate the untruths from the real truths and base our opinions on that. To do it any other way is lazy citizenry. Still “dissent” is the engine that has always driven this country forward and is one of the things that makes this country great. So when you say, “Do you want your children to see this?” I say, “Absolutely” because what you are seeing on the streets of America today is real democracy in action.

© 2010 by Ira Schwartz. Used by permission. All rights reserved

Nullification and Federalism

Occasionally, I like to write an article historically based and not necessarily based upon events of the day. However, the issues addressed in this article are not just historical. The issue of Nullification and its effects on the United States are far reaching and in reality were probably the cause of the Civil War. There is a strong movement in the country now based upon Nullification and The Tenth Amendment. The Tea Party movement and Ron Paul are just a small fraction of the groups which are actively supporting these theories and principles.

To understand Nullification, one must first have a basic understanding of Federalism. The United States is a Federalist country. It has always been so from the beginning. A Federalist country is a group of smaller units, in this case States, which are joined together as a union for the common good. In the case of the United States, Federalism comes from historical roots and is embodied in the Constitution. Another example of a Federalist country is the Federal Republic of Germany. Mexico has states but is not truly Federalist in that all the power is concentrated within the Central Government.

Nullification is based on the principle that the Constitution was ratified by the States not the people. James Madison pointed out that each state was ratifying the Constitution for itself, whereas had it been a truly national endeavor, a binding ratification vote would have been taken among the American people as a whole. Thus, it is the States which control the government and not the people. And, it is the people which, in turn, control the individual States.

So, the Framers of the Constitution understood that they were creating a Federal Government in which the States had ultimate control and the Central Government had limited powers set forth in the Constitution, specifically in Article 1, Section 8. Further evidence of this is found in the Tenth Amendment which clearly states that:

“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.”

However, since the drafting and ratifying of The Constitution, the powers of the States have gradually dwindled. The “Alien and Sedition” Acts and the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were some of the first major battlefields involving the power of the Central Government. In both cases, the Central Government won. In the case of the Tariffs, South Carolina nullified the laws and later threatened to secede from the union. A compromise was reached which lowered the tariff thereby ending the crisis before it came to a head.

Unfortunately, this was not the case over the issue of Slavery. From the Missouri Compromise until the election of Abraham Lincoln, the issue of States’ sovereignty came up many times on this issue alone. Prior to the start of Secession in 1860 and the Civil War, many battles were fought in Congress over whether the individual states had the right to be slave or free.

The issue was quite simple. Could a state enter the union based upon its own decision whether it wanted to be slave or free? The South argued that since slavery was guaranteed by the Constitution, any state applying for admission to the Union had the right to declare its choice on this issue. The Northern Abolitionists felt the Federal Government had the right to limit slavery and to eliminate slavery in the Southern states which practiced it. The Republican Party of the time was split on the issue, but mostly believed that Slavery should not cease in the States where it already existed, but could be limited by Federal authority in new states applying for admission.

The whole issue came to a head in 1860 when the initial Southern States seceded from the Union stating that since they had volunteered to join the union, they could also voluntarily secede. We all know the ultimate result: The bloodiest war in the history of the United States. Over 600,000 American lost their lives over this issue.

Eventually, the North won and the South was forced to accept that the Central Government had the power to end slavery and enforce the solidarity of the union. The Tenth Amendment’s claim to power and threats of Nullification and Secession ended. However, it should be noted, that even though the North was victorious, slavery could not have ended and slaves did not become citizens, nor have the right to vote until the passage of the Thirteenth, through Fifteenth Amendments.

States’ rights have dwindled ever since. Most legal precedent for the growth and power of the Central Government come from the clause in Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution which states Congress shall have to power to regulate Interstate Commerce. This clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give Congress the power to do practically anything provided it affects Interstate Commerce. In fact, the Interstate Commerce Clause is the main reason being used to counter Tenth Amendment arguments on the pending Health Care Legislation.

The theory of Nullification goes back a long way. The Kentucky Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1798, contained the following which has often been cited as a justification for both nullification and secession:

“ … that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, 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: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it… “

Now, you may ask, why am I making such a big deal about Nullification? It should be clear. There is a strong minority in the country who believe Nullification should be permitted by the States in regards to the Health Care bill and much other unpopular legislation being proposed by the Obama Administration.

One of the most recent examples of the use of Nullification is Montana’s Nullification of the REAL ID Act of 2005. The Montana Legislature Nullified the law under the theory that the Act was unconstitutional and an improper use of Federal Power. Implicit in the argument was The Tenth Amendment.

Further issues of Nullification are coming up now in many states regarding the medical use of marijuana and, in some instances, the legality of recreational use of marijuana. Federal Agents are using Federal Laws against marijuana to arrest proprietors and users under these state statutes, but thus far, no test case has gone far enough for the Nullification and Tenth Amendment arguments to be scrutinized and ruled upon.

However, that day is coming and will probably come soon; especially if the Obama Administration gets its way and continues to increase the power of the Federal Government. If the Health Care bill passes and 1/6 of the US Economy comes under Central Government control, I am sure that some States will be forced by their citizenry to consider Nullification in the same manner that Congress is considering the unconstitutional use of Reconciliation to pass the bill.

The only question really left is whether the use of Nullification is good or bad. People who believe in the Tenth Amendment, of which I am one, feel that Nullification is good. However, it should be used sparingly and only when there is a strong belief that the Act of Congress and/or the Administration are beyond the powers permitted them by the Constitution.

If this power is used too often, there are many potential ramifications. As written in a prior Article, the Texas Governor has already threatened secession. This is not good. We are the United States of America and we must be united forever. However, when the Federal Government goes beyond its Constitutional powers, then Nullification is the answer and the right comes from The Tenth Amendment and the Constitution itself.

For further information about Nullification, its history and legal theories, as well as the Tenth Amendment please see:

www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=57

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

© 2010 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely granted upon request.