I have had many debates over this issue and it does not get any easier. Recently the New York State legislature passed a horrendous anti-freedom bill entitled the NYSAFE act. This legislation, that was passed in the middle of the night without proper debate, instantaneously made honest, law-abiding citizens criminals. It banned the possession of a myriad of innocuous semi-automatic rifles and magazines (not clips) that can hold more than seven rounds of ammunition along with many other ridiculous “feel good” items. It may well be that Commissar Cuomo and his Republican lackeys overstepped their bounds. You see, in New Yorks Constitution there contains a bill of “Civil Rights” much like the United States Constitutions “Bill of Rights”. New York Civil Rights – Article 2 – § 4 is New York’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms security. It states:

Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

This is the exactly the same as the Federal Constitutions Second Amendment except the words “cannot be infringed” replaces “shall not be infringed”. Law suits are already in place to overturn this horrible piece of legislation.

If New York courts uphold this freedom denying legislation, which I believe is inevitable, then the People of New York have a couple of choices. Throw out the tyrannical legislators and King, oh I mean Governor, that helped enact it, or submissively acquiesce to it and grovel at the feet of their new Masters.

I will fight tooth and nail to have this overturned, but in the end, the will of New Yorkers will prevail, like it or not. I can either move or submit.

Now, Federal legislation is a completely different story. All of the hullabaloo over what type of “Federal” action should be taken regarding firearm ownership should be for naught. The Constitution gives no authority to the President, the Congress or the Supreme Court to “regulate” firearm ownership. Background checks, Mental capacity, “Assault Weapons”, magazine capacity and all other firearm related topics are no concern for the “Federal Government”. This is an issue left strictly to the States. The Second Amendment was enacted for just such a reason. The Founding Fathers were very afraid that a central government would interfere with the ability of the States to defend themselves against a tyrannical body wishing to limit or take away their freedom, hence the Second Amendment. The Federal Government has no authority in this realm.

The “Bill of Rights” are a check on the powers of the Federal Government not on the States like many will claim. No, the Fourteenth Amendment did not “incorporate” them.

The States had Constitutions long before the Federal Government came into being. They were and still are sovereign entities that delegated certain enumerated powers to the Federal Government. The States are the “creator”, the Federal government the “created”. The created cannot be greater than the creator.

If your State passes UN-constitutional “State” laws, it is your obligation to fight to remedy the situation. If it does not protect your “Right to keep and bear arms” then fix it. However, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction in this matter and any law passed is UN-Constitutional and void. It is only when we begin to understand the true nature of our government will we be able to defend it. Wake up people, time is running out.

Many Counties, towns and local communities throughout New York State have passed resolutions “Nullifying” the recently enacted (in the middle of the night) NYSAFE Act. Governor Cuomo along with his lackeys in the Republican and Democrat parties rammed through this Anti-Freedom bill in the middle of the night and almost instantly made criminals out of hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens. (Read more)The act banned magazines of more than SEVEN rounds and made illegal a myriad of semi-automatic rifles and infringed on our Natural rights. However, this political stunt may have back-fired. Throughout New York State law abiding citizens are loudly protesting with thousands attending rallies in almost every County. (more…)

One of the forgotten Founding Fathers. John Taylor was “Raised in the home of his uncle Edmund Pendleton, John Taylor (1753–1824) attended The College of William and Mary, studied law, served as a major in the Continental Army, and became a successful lawyer and planter, owning several plantations and 150 slaves. He preferred his rural life, but entered politics to defend republican values, serving in the Virginia legislature (1779–81, 1783–85, 1796–1800) and filling out unexpired terms in the U.S. Senate (1793–1794, 1803, 1822–24). Taylor was clearly no archaic-radical republican like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He did not find freedom in political participation as such, but he would step forward in a crisis, as his sponsorship of the Virginia Resolutions, damning the Alien and Sedition Acts, shows.

Taylor began as an “Anti-federalist.” Once the Constitution won ratification, he meant to hold the victors to the assurances they gave while promoting it. Generally, Taylor’s books (1814, 1818, 1822, 1823) arose from immediate political questions; they included attacks on federal economic policies and reasoned polemics against the centralizing decisions of John Marshall’s Supreme Court.

The New York Tenth Amendment Center will post some of this forgotten Patriot’s writings in the hope that it will spur our fellow citizens into an understanding of our Constitution and the eventual restoration of our Republic. (more…)

For some time now, and particularly since November 6th, I have been speculating as to what can be done to effectively counter the unrelenting Progressive onslaught on our liberties and sovereignty.

Sincerely believing that Progressives must, at long last, be boldly and constitutionally challenged and outmaneuvered, and thinking outside the proverbial box, I think I’ve come up with a plan worth pursuing. But, like any political action plan worth its salt, so much depends upon the honor, political courage and integrity of our key political players. (Sadly, that requirement could be this plan’s Achilles’ heel.)

To counter the Progressive tyranny, many States are finally getting a spine and asserting their sovereignty by actually nullifying federal edicts, laws, directives and, some day soon I hope, judicial activist rulings as well. And if rule of law is our goal, then nullification remains an indispensable tool in that effort.

From a historical standpoint, the sheer volume of nullification activities over the last four years exceeds anything this country has seen since before the War of Northern Aggression in 1861, misleadingly dubbed the “civil war”. A very hopeful trend, indeed, and a trend we should all endorse and encourage. For as Thomas Jefferson asserted, nullification is “the rightful remedy” to federal encroachment. (Note: with the fearless and dedicated efforts of the 10th Amendment Center, I suspect that acts of nullification/interposition will be on the upswing in the years ahead. And thank God for that!) (more…)

No, not because it cedes too much power to the federal government. Surely that opinion would not be allowed in the New York Times.

Anticipating objections, I agree with the Spoonerite criticism of the Constitution, but in what follows I am acting as a historian and a logician evaluating claims.

Georgetown University’s Louis Michael Seidman writes in the NYT:

“Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago…. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

The issue is not what Madison would have wanted. The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could impose their own preferences on the public instead. (more…)

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well-intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws. (more…)

Historically, short of revolution or rebellion, secession is the ultimate practical check on centralization.

No branch of the federal government is empowered to decide upon the merits of a State’s inherent right to secede. By its very nature, secession is an anti-federal act not requiring federal sanction.

Petitioning the federal government for permission to secede is self-contradictory and has no basis in English common law or American constitutional history. Secession/rescission/withdrawal is a unilateral action and is not dependent upon mutual agreement between the parties to that contract.

When one enters into a contract and the other party violates that contract, does one request permission of the offending party to withdraw from that contract already violated? Of course not. All compacts are subject to the equitable remedy of rescission in the event of a breach of contract. It’s really common sense, basic contract law. It’s that straightforward. (more…)

Regarding the nature of this hallowed union of States, Americans must never, ever forget how the Founders viewed this union and the States which comprise it.

We must get past the adolescent, uninformed, politically correct and self-destructive notion that this union is inviolably indissoluble. This union is not indivisible and never has been. To believe otherwise defies logic, commonsense and flies in the face of our founders’ understanding. Despite the relentless brainwashing over the years, a little honest research—without the blinders—is all that is required for readers to clearly understand the unassailable right of a State to secede.

From its inception, the united States of America has been a voluntary association of sovereign States. In truth, no States were coerced to become members of that association. The union is a contractual association, a compact of independent States, any of which may secede from that association should the other party to that contract, that being the federal government, fails to uphold its contractual obligations. To wit, as a condition of their ratifying the US Constitution, Virginia, Maryland and Rhode Island explicitly reserved their right to secede, and no objections from the Founders were raised. And, in accordance with the 10th Amendment, because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, that power, like all other powers not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States. (more…)

As we sit at the dinner table today we give thanks to God for all the blessings we have in life. Many of us have much to be thankful for, however, many will feel that they do not. To you I say:  Give thanks for your eyes  that allow you to see the beauty all around you. Give thanks for your legs that allow you to travel freely about. Give thanks for your hearing that allow you to hear the sound of your children’s voices and beautiful music. Give thanks for your arms and hands that allow you to hold your grandchildren and hug your wife. Give thanks for a sound mind. (more…)

MACOMB, NY (February 15, 2012) The Town Council of Macomb, New York, didn’t wait for the State of New York or St. Lawrence County to step up to protect the citizens in their township from Sections 21 and 22 of the National Defense Authorization Act, but took matters into their own hands by passing a resolution opposing Sections 21 and 22 of the NDAA bill signed into law by President Barack Hussein Obama on New Years Eve.

Macomb, Town Council member Steve Burke in a telephone interview, the measure was approved unanimously by the Town Board. Burke also informed “TAC News” that copies of the approved resolution would be sent to President Obama, as well as, state and federal representatives.

According to other sources the measure was brought to his attention by Rhode Island State Representative Dan Gordon.

The Tenth Amendment Center praises Councilman Burke, the Macomb Town Council and Representative Gordon for their awareness of these serious issues and their actions to protect their respective constituencies from these dangerous infringements on Constitutionally guaranteed protections under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments.