Good.

The office of the Attorney General of Michigan published the following statement today:

“LANSING – Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox today announced that Michigan has joined the State of Florida in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health care legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives Sunday night (H.R. 3590).

“Congress’ attempt to force Michigan families to buy health insurance – or else – raises serious constitutional concerns,” said Cox. “We will fight to defend the individual rights and freedoms of Michigan citizens against this radical overreach by the federal government.”

Michigan joined several states in Florida’s legal challenge to H.R. 3590. The lawsuit challenges Congressional authority under the U.S. Constitution to enact an individual mandate compelling Michigan citizens to purchase health insurance or face large fines.

Cox also expressed concern about the continued inclusion of the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” in legislation. The “Kickback” allows the State of Nebraska to avoid paying its fair share of an expansion of Medicaid by forcing taxpayers in states like Michigan to pick up the $100 million tab.

In December, Cox joined a bi-partisan group of Attorneys General from across the country opposing the kickback and demanding Congress remove the unfair provision or potentially face legal action.”

The constitution is THE law of the land. It is the agreement under which the states had pledged to operate, so as to retain sovereignty all the while creating a framework for our common defense, coining money, and trade.

And no one has been more damaged already by these forays into illegal use of federal power than Michigan. Mandates cleverly hidden in “grants” and monies given to states remove a little of each state’s self governance, and our Governor has eagerly jumped for such things, ultimately sacrificing Michigan’s energy independence, and control of schools.

This power grab unfortunately brings with it a new set of entitlements that will cause distress to those who were actually hoping for real solutions in health care they have. Truth be told, the resulting damage to the way in which we choose our professions and careers becomes affected, resulting in fewer professionals entering the field of medicine, that ultimately leads to shortage of care.

Michelle Malkin highlights other states (Michigan not listed there) which have lawsuits planned.

The bill is both shortsighted and unconstitutional. Challenging it on the grounds of its legality is the least our AG can do.

Anyways, of course the feds don’t like being challenged, and in the case of the ATF, will claim that the state law doesn’t mean anything. The same effectively holds true on the medical marijuana side of the coin as well.

Of course these are just two areas that I’ve used as examples. There are many more, one of which is the issue of the EPA declaring that they will regulate CO2 emissions if congress doesn’t act, and states responding with a lawsuit.

Despite the many areas in which states can, or have, pushed for their sovereignty, I chose to use these two examples because of the way that the government likes to handle violations in those areas – usually violently.

It’s one thing for the state to declare their sovereignty in one of these areas, but unless they are actually willing to take action against federal agents who go against these declarations and laws, it’s all talk.

Wyoming’s firearms freedom act is a good start in regards to this. Not only does the law tell the federal government to bugger off, but that attempts by federal agents to apply federal law to state produced and held firearms will subject the agents to jail time.

Like I said though, it’s a start. Reading the article further, you’ll see that Rep. Allen Jaggi claims that particular section of the law to be symbolic.

If that’s the case, then why have it?

Not only that, but the article further continued to mention that if current litigation regarding Montana’s firearms freedom act don’t pan out, they might try with Wyoming’s.

Let’s be perfectly honest: The chance of a federal court actually ruling in favor of a state’s 10th Amendments rights? Probably not. Cases like Wickard v. Filburn show the love federal courts have for a bloated interpretation of the ICC.

Even if there was a ruling in favor of the state law (keep in mind that the state itself is not a party in the suit) at the trial court level, I have lower expectations for a win in an appellate court. In the event it goes before the SCOTUS (and I wouldn’t be surprised if they deny writ), I wouldn’t make any bets.

I’m not going sugar coat things. In the event states pass laws which expressly indicate to the federal government that they’re done dicking around in regards to the 10th Amendment – i.e. these laws, like the one example I mentioned already, have provisions for imprisoning law enforcement agents found to be in violation – they need to be willing to back it up regardless of what the SCOTUS or any other federal court thinks.

Yes, if that means telling the federal government “ef you very much, we’re not releasing your guy”, then that’s what should happen. At that point, the dice should just let fall where they will. We didn’t break off from Britain because some royal court ruled it constitutional, and states aren’t going to nullify unconstitutional laws if they don’t push when the pushing is needed.

This should be the case for ALL situations where a federal law oversteps the bounds of the constitution, not just those related to firearms or pot.

The 9th and 10th amendments were specifically created to address this type of illegitimate usurpation of power by our government.

How did it happen?  Check out the live blogging of the event of the century at Michelle Malkin’s site

Folks, if these people survive one more term then it truly is over… If the LAW of the constitution means nothing, then there is no more law.

UPDATE —–  The Following Democrats voted NO on the Bill after voting yes to the Stupak amendment.  They are much appreciated for making opposition to this monstrosity CLEARLY Bi-Partisan…

Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Gordon (TN), Griffith, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague

.

The United States Constitution was completed and signed at the Philadelphia Convention 222 years ago tonight on September 17, 1787. Senator Patterson’s Senate Resolution 17 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 4 are reminders that the founding fathers knew what was best when they established that our new country needed a commitment to the rule of law, limited government and the ideals of liberty, equality and justice for all.

States Rights folks..  Patterson says:

“My reasons for so strongly stating my belief in the Tenth Amendment through these resolutions is that our federal government is becoming oppressive in size and is intruding in our lives,” Senator Patterson emphasized.

It should be noted that similar resolutions have been introduced in 36 states.  The recent power grab by our federal government demonstrates how it can run away if allowed.  These States including our own are reaffirming their “contract” of over 2 centuries ago.

Last we checked..  we still have a constitution… right?

Much of this interview might come off as possibly disjointed, unconnected, or perhaps a little unorganized.  (perhaps a little schizophrenic) For that, I, and WE both (myself and I) apologize.  It is sometimes hard ringing the bell, riding the horse, and answering questions.. All while trying to run a business, fend off creditors and reign in debtors.  Were it so easy as the proverbial mastication of a mucilage like substance while promenading about… (chewing gum while walking)

Before I begin, I should say I wanted to set up the interview in a manner which gets the full effect and emotion from the interviewee (that would be me) with my questions.  To do so, I may have to get a little rough at times and hopefully the reader understands it is necessary, and to not feel too sorry for Mr. Gillman. Having said that, I am certain we should move on, so without further ado…

Jason Gillman, you have lived in Michigan for all of your 44 years, what have you done in that time to save the world?

What? Jumped that one right out there!  Is that a joke? you have the nerve to come off right away with a question like that? OK, someone turn off the..

ha ha.. It was just to warm you up.. relax

OK I thought you said.. oh never mind

Alright Jason, really the question is “What have you done to make Michigan a better state?”

Well, that’s a matter of opinion I guess.  But if you had to twist my arm, I would say that I have consumed, bought a car, gone to school, paid taxes, held a number of jobs, and had children… Oh, and not necessarily in that order.

But, those are normal things that anyone coul..

Define Normal SIR!

Hey relax, its you.. um me.. take a chill…  What I mean, is that those are things that anyone else in the state has done.  There is hardly anything there that makes you stand out in..

In what? A state with 9 million people?

Yeah.. well, kinda.. I mean, you/I/WE have this blog, where you write about liberty, equality, rule of law, etc.. yet you aren’t even mentioning that.  Do you not want to place it as something you have done that benefits the state and its citizens?  Don’t you feel it has SOME positive effect?

OK..  Its like this..  I love to write.  Its for me, because after several years of bad actors in positions of power in Michigan and nationally, I needed an outlet.  I am a passionate individual who became tired of yelling at the radio, the TV, and generally the sycophant media which has offered up the common man as worthless, in favor of a new ruling elite who will save-us-all.  I deny that any one source, including this blog will solve the issues of the day in and of itself.

So when I bring up as a solution, or what I HAVE DONE, I prefer to mark the normalcy, or what should be seen as the normalcy of everyday life.  What is more wonderful than having a child born who will bear many of your tendencies, create on his or her own, and enjoy life as it is?  Is there anything as unique in all of the animal world where an individual can trade with another, voluntarily, the fruits of his or her labor?  What other creatures can congregate with others of a kind, and learn, expand knowledge, and discover amazing technologies as do we humans in our educational pursuits?

I think I am beginning to see..

The bottom line is that it is the “normal folks” who will save Michigan.  Consumers, if they are allowed to buy what they want, pursue their interests, and deal without interference from “busy body” lawmakers and bureaucrats, they will quite naturally strengthen the financial backbone of our economy.  The normal folks, who see life as precious, and thrive on the new wonders they bring to the world that will move our civilization forward with their own new discoveries and inventions.

And finally..  NORMAL FOLKS pay taxes.  This is not because they like to pay taxes, but because there are some legitimate functions of government, and there must be a mechanism to pay for it.

What do you see as “government’s legitimate role?

Well it depends on the level of government you are talking about.  On a federal level, it is the protection of our God given rights.  That can be read as those inalienable rights gifted to us by our creator.  If a person is atheist, he might view them as those rights bestowed by mom & dad.  Those rights are ours.  They are not for a government to give, or take away.  The federal creation was that as a collective it could better preserve our basic natural rights, and allow localities to determine more minor common functions.  The federal government is supposed to be our protector, and its movement into redistributing of the “normal man’s” wealth is wrong.

The State, and localities provide for the common services, such as  fire, police, and local courts. And though public education is greatly flawed, it is also not an improper role in my view, but rather [at this time] improperly managed.  There are basic common needs that require the presence of an impartial body, and the state and local governments should be serving that role.  They should not however be offering up as reward for sloth, and failure to contribute, rewards of “general assistance.”  The legitimately perpetually needy concerns should be left to the privately funded charities, and faith based institutions.  While the government cannot possibly track the beneficiaries properly, private community organizations can determine real need more accurately.

What about the rights of “special groups;” gays, ethnic, women?

What about them?  Why does it become a question? Their rights being the same as anyone else’, should bring cause for special treatment?  Even if we acknowledge the “past 40 years” as evidence something needed to be done for racial equality issues, it was more a matter of the protections that government should have been affording those individuals in the first place,  but instead was socially painting them into a corner by declaring their “inequality” with racial preferences.

Gays have the same rights as you and I.  IF they bore children between themselves, why wouldn’t they be allowed to raise them? Money and benefit issues are the primary reasons they seek “marriage” provisions in the first place.  Civil unions don’t carry the weight of law as marriage does in most cases where job benefit issues are concerned.  And those who are left merely seek a form of confirmation that they are also “normal,” as perhaps they themselves distrust the type of relationships they seek.

As for women, anthropologically speaking men and women have served far different roles, and physically have developed quite differently.  Nature’s Course, God’s will, species survival, or what ever you want to call it, places burdens differently where it is needed.  The underlying truth is that there are things men or women can and cannot do, as statics.  Politically, intellectually, there is little, if any difference, but often practicality and pragmatism must dominate as the reality in terms of the physical equality.

WOW pretty strong stuff..

Just my opinion..

Speaking of opinions, what makes your opinion any better than anyone elses?  Aren’t you just a little full of yourself?

I would prefer to not couch it in that way.  Much of my consideration regarding the human condition, politics, etc.., are framed in a way that does not advocate rule that will impose my will on anyone.  I merely request the same of others.  How could anyone argue in any logical sense that they support taking from one to give to another as reasonable.  Because that is ultimately what happens in nearly any transaction either regulatory, or otherwise when government makes law.  My opinions presuppose that few laws are worthy, which lay as a burden to our free exchange of ideas or commerce.  Even those contemporary mandates which serve a promise of  “protection” are most often unnecessary and create new problems in the stead of old problems presumably resolved.

By contemporary mandates I suppose you are talking about “global warming” initiatives?

Those, and any number of other “statist” mechanization’s which impose artificial limits on people or industry, and are handily crafted by persons who have little knowledge of the science they are following.  Global protection initiatives are merely the recent incarnation of an over reaching legislative authority.  They hardly know what is in the bills they sign, but tout them as solutions to our ills.  We have seen bad legislation based on suspicion of effect in the change over from Freon, DDT, and now an assault on CO2 levels, of which humans have very little affect, and is now being debunked as a cause of anything, but to make plant life thrive.

OK, so now I pretty much have a good idea where you are on the issues, would you ever be interested in pursuing a public sector life? I mean would the people reading this ever see you in a bid as a candidate for elected office?

Are you kidding me?  I would love to be able to affect policy in a way that restores previously held liberties, while expanding to all, the same opportunities anyone who is a legitimate citizen of this country has.

OK, I know I asked the question,   do you really think you are qualified to hold a political office?  What do you know of procedure, etiquette, and building consensus?  It seems to me that you are often quite divisive, holding a little too steadfastly to your beliefs.  How would you suppose to enact policy change if you are nothing but disagreeable most often?  How could you possibly win any office?? Also, what do you mean legitimate citizen?

Ouch..  take off the kid gloves why don’t you…

Look, the founders were farmers, small business owners, concerned citizens, etc.. just common folk.  It could be argued that today’s issues are far more complex I suppose, but isn’t it the legislative body which has made it so?  Ultimately the defense of our country, is to hire the best guns (our veteran military) and use the best technology to squash our opponents?  IF our opponents know they can be squashed, they will pose little threat to us. Dealing from strength is not a complex perspective.

Etiquette and procedure can be learned on the job. Consensus has lately been a code word for agreement with those who are your opponents.  Perhaps I might be able to educate a few of the overtly big government types why their methods have historically been failing.  It then changes from compromise and consensus, to a better educated agreement. And before you challenge me with a “why do you assume you are always right?” question, I should note, I would gladly bow to logic, anytime.

“Legitimate citizen” was simply in reference to the large numbers of illegals (undocumented aliens here illegally per existing law)  in this country. A side issue , that I hope can be resolved.

Since you mentioned it, what about those “illegals?” Should they be shipped back to wherever they came from? What would you propose to do to create an amicable solution for all?

There are a number of problems that stem from the fact these folks are here against law and policy.  I would prefer not to list them.  I will say however, that I have little problem with naturalizing those who are here to grow and contribute to the great American experiment.  I am not sure how best it would be done, but I have made a few suggestions in the past.  Searching the blog, you might find the list.  There is one particular thing that could be done however, which would make naturalization easier, and would also lend itself to myriad other advantages; English as a national language.

One last question before  we break till another time, In this coming election cycle we have a number of highly qualified candidates on the Republican side for governor.  Do you have a favorite?

I have three that I like and would be happy to support in the general election and a couple I would likely not vote for and might well campaign against.   I suppose my opinion is that that Snyder and George both represent the current “moderate” crop of Republicans which have quite frankly lost much credibility as an opposition party to the Democrats.  They a little too quickly capitulate to that side of the political spectrum that thinks government has a place controlling behavior ( such as smoking) by limiting the choice of business to operate sans oppressive regulatory rules.  Sorry..  further, they have not indicated they would pledge to limit how far government will tax its citizens.  That leaves the door open to further irresponsible spending, and that’s NOT conservative, and NOT what the framers intended.

My three Favorites are Cox, Hoekstra, and Land.  I wouldn’t even mind throwing a lever for Bouchard, though I think he is a little late in the game, especially with such a full slate.  These are pretty decent conservatives with decent records I can mostly agree with.  Ultimately I would like any particular candidate to think exactly the way I do, but ultimately recognize that it around 90% is a perfectly acceptable rate.   I do welcome any input, and would gladly field any input by these candidates (including Snyder or George)  or others not mentioned within these pages.

Thank you for your/my time.  Look for another installment soon!

If success for Barack Obama means the continuance of policies aimed at destroying the constitution, I hope he fails miserably. Further, I hope he is finally seen in a fitting way as a thug president attempting to usurp powers which belong to the people.  I also hope that the people are wise enough to see the direction these Socialist/Marxist Wannabe potentates would take us.  Perhaps the 10th amendment will help for those who need reminding:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The founders knew things such as a welfare state would happen, and they understood human nature. History at the very least held the Romans out as highly successful Republic until a gradual change to a democracy, which eventually gave them the Caesars and special interests fighting for the rights to spend the treasury in whatever manner they saw fit.  Governments all too easily can work for the sake of themselves, rather than for the people of whom they are servant to.

This is the very reason this country exists.  It was a response to an overbearing, unresponsive beast which did not recognize the freedoms that are a birthright.  The colonists knowing they would never be truly protected and represented by their remote governors said enough is enough.  The founders then experienced firsthand the tyrannical response of the spurned Monarchy.  The kingdom which denied the god given rights many of us take for granted, and would hold the colonists to a slavery of tithing to it.. or else.

Limbaugh understands this all too well as he has been the thorn in the side of the Clinton Presidency, and n0w for “his Excellency” Barack Obama.  He is currently being attacked through the collaborative efforts of the whitehouse and certain elements in the press and congress itself. The Republican party which had been weakened by the two terms of the Bush administration has been tagged as now being “led” by Limbaugh in a move that hopes to weaken the party because of Limbaugh’s statements hoping for Obama’s failure.

The reason Democrats think this will work is because of the Milquetoast resolve many in the Republican leadership have shown in the last two decades.

The assumption is that to defeat Republican Ideals, the messengers must be separated, marginalized, and eliminated one by one.  To attack the message head on would be folly, as most Americans STILL hold the belief that the constitution is still the law of the land.  To wit, MOST Americans are actually Republican in ideals.  Attaching stigma to each of the conservative  leaders as they come forward keeps the cohesiveness of common conservative ideas from being enough to hold back a determined socialist agenda.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

People do not need to like Rush Limbaugh’s confrontational manner to support him, and in turn support the fight against an aggressive socialist agenda.  We as a nation simply need to understand that our enemy is common.  It is a gradual removal of the protections afforded by the constitution through unchecked legislative action, and seemingly increasing presidential powers.  The legislative branch and the presidency are an affront to the relegated powers assigned by our founding documents.

Silencing the loudest and most clearly resistive voice to the destruction of those controlling forces which bind the state’s hands is the agenda of the day.  Weaker minds will instead prefer to believe that “in the best interest” of the country, “divisive rhetoric” should be silenced and a back should be turned to the boisterous pronouncement that freedom is our best bet.  That pronouncement coming from behind what is known as the EIB Microphone. The stand of an “entertainer.”

What is “divisive,” is the use of selected soundbites to further the dissolution of true patriots who have minor differences, yet share core principles.  What is “divisive,” is the continued corralling of those who disagree only slightly with their peers, yet find themselves supporting the unsupportable by their own reactionary reflection of the day’s news, and how they are expected to “feel” about it.

We are facing great change.  Yes.. I can only Hope it fails.

From NH HCR 6:

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and…

And… it goes on to further reinforce the sovereign authority of NH residents, and decries the best efforts of the feds.  My sincerest thanks and respect goes out to the legislators in the great state of New Hampshire, who recognize the encroaching federal ambitions which are DIRECT violations of state’s sovereign rights, and further are contradictory to the individual rights of all of the US citizens.

Which will be the next state to remind the bloated power mongering federal government, that it belongs to us, and not the other way around?

Recently, Michigan State Rep. Opsommer offered the following concurrent resolution:

House Concurrent Resolution No. 4.
A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
Whereas, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; now,

Therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That we hereby affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. We also urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Office of the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

The concurrent resolution was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

In any event, the current events cycle indicates that the tenth amendment is becoming likely one of the most relevent articles as the government makes repeated power grabs extending its control over states and individuals.  The question is do we still have the reslove to fight it?

There is the little thing about FOCA.  ever hear of it?  It wasn’t completely on my radar up until recently.  I suspect if “the one” had lost, it wouldn’t be an issue. FOCA is the Freedom Of Choice Act which appears to be a real possibility with an  Obama presidency. During the campaign He has said “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.” From the fight FOCA site:

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.

• FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
• FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
• FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.

Amazing thing.. If you would have asked me 10 years ago if I would be an ardent defender of the unborn.. I wouldn’t have thought so. Not that I ever thought abortion is/was OK, but rather because it isn’t a comfortable issue for many to talk about. But now it also presents itself as a constitutional issue as well.

Some things become even more “self evident” over time. And as I look at history, our founding and our relationship with God.  We are born with inalienable rights that no MAN or government can take away.  The issue as ALWAYS is whether we have a government which can protect those rights as our founders promised us as presented in the bill of rights.  The constitution makes no claim of GOVERNMENT’S ability to Give rights, but merely holds that none of man’s laws can subvert NATURAL law, or that which you are born unto.

So a right of LIFE, LIBERTY, and a PURSUIT of such things through the constitution… is protected.

Consider the 10th amendment:

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.

FOCA challenges this.  FOCA is contrary on this point as a matter of law.  This is hardly opinion weighted by emotion either.  Nothing could be clearer than the 10th amendment, yet here we are…  With an election win by folks who “promise” the signing into law of a bill which is on its face contrary to the tenth amendment, are we not seeing the intent to disregard the constitution entirely? The STATES have laws which by passage of this bill into law might be rendered moot?

The US Constitution either stands whole or it falls. it is hardly a flexible thing

To parse the constitution’s value based on the ideology of the current set of elected representatives is anathema to the document itself.  The hatred for the protections it has offered us over the years has placed it in jeopardy. Now through the careful manipulation of media, and a strong relativistic push for decades, it all seems…  normal.

Oh yes.. we are SO going to be FOCA…