“…A president who won a sweeping political mandate, … [with] about as much power as any president could ever hope to muster in peacetime — was only able to pass an expansion of health … a limited stimulus … and a financial regulation bill … . Obama probably did the best he could do, and that’s the point. [It is] the best our current two parties can produce today.”

I beg to differ.

Obama failed because of a massive awakening and outcry of the citizens, coupled with the checks and balances provided by the US Constitution, not because of a flaw inherit in the two party system.

I don’t want a smoothly working machine that can ram anything down our throats quicker than we can say “Internal Revenue Service.”

Friedman concludes that “a serious third party” is needed “to look Americans in the eye and say: ‘These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear…’” — in other words, a party not beholden to the almighty dollar wielded by special interests.

Pardon my asking, but how will a “serious third party” do this? Will they not still need money to get elected, and thus be vulnerable to the very same corrupting influences that got us here to begin with?

Furthermore, our undoing has primarily been in the last century, beginning with the creation of the Federal Reserve as a source for unlimited Federal spending (and thus vote-buying) and the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. It is not a systemic product of the two-party political system that existed long before 1900.

The GOP and the Democrats have become increasingly unified ideologically. To prove my point, isn’t it true that whenever long-overdue reforms like universal parental choice, private accounts for Social Security, term limits or spending caps are proposed by “Tea Party types,” the political elite of both parties unleash a cacophony of “no?”

So with this in mind, if (or when) a third party enters the scene, it seems to me that it would have to capture a majority of the House and Senate in order to get anything done, because in a three-way split, the third party will be outnumbered by a supermajority of the corrupt elites that are the problem.

I propose that a more effective way out is to elect principled, courageous state leaders who will assert the sovereignty of their citizens and of the state and actively resist Federal tyranny via Nullification and Interposition and even economic secession (which will be the topic of a future post). There are many gutsy measures before our state legislative bodies just waiting for statesmen with spines to vote for them.

Are we now so far from our Constitution and The American Ideal as to believe that our solutions must come from Washington, instead of our backyard? I hope not.

Sens. Hutto and Lourie, you and I both know that actual state sovereignty legislation hasn’t a shadow of a chance of passing if we cannot pass a non-binding state sovereignty resolution. Furthermore, if dealing with the 12% unemployment rate is really more important, get out of the way and pass the “useless” resolution and move on. Contrary to your words, your actions show you feel this is a very significant resolution.

Several binding pieces of states-rights legislation have already been filed or are in the process of being filed, but before we can begin to nullify unconstitutional federal legislation and refuse federal funds for unconstitutional programs, we have to put the feds on notice that the South Carolina legislature believes that the 10th amendment actually means something, and we are prepared to stand our ground.

There is nothing controversial about this bill. This non-binding resolution merely restates what the U.S. Constitution already says, 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.” We the people see through your political games and we’re sick of it. To Democrats and RINOs alike: stop being obstructionists and get on with business.

…

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Historian Thomas E. Woods looks at nullification as a constitutional “check,” and a way to prevent one government from having the power to rule on the limits of its own authority:

“The main point that nullification aims to address is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. Moreover, since piecemeal solutions to reducing federal power have accomplished nothing, we can hardly afford to dismiss out of hand the idea of nullification, a remedy that is at once creative and intelligent, and recommended by some of the greatest political thinkers in American history.”

Resistance Left, Right and Center

Groups across the political spectrum have focused their efforts on this same principle – calling on state governments to not just say no to the federal government, but to actively resist federal laws and actions.

• Firearms Freedom Acts have passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and under the force of law, call on those governments to refuse federal regulation of firearms made and kept in those respective states.

• Real ID legislation has passed in approximately 2 dozen states requiring state governments to refuse implementation of the 2005 law.

• Health Care Freedom Acts are being actively pursued in six states (including Arizona), and would resist proposed national health care legislation on a number of levels.

What do you do?

The 2010 elections are more than a year away. Will America as we know it still exist then? If Barack Obama in his first 6 months in office can spend more than every prior U.S. President combined, what might the next year hold? TARP, the “porkulus” bill, socialized medicine, Cash-for-clunkers, Cap-and-tax… all the while ignoring the real solutions to the problems we face. What will they do next?

Desperate times call for desperate measures. And Americans have had just about all they are willing to take–especially in Texas.

Yesterday (Aug. 29th) “thousands of Texans poured into the capitol and other major cities across the state to demand that their elected officials immediately deliver an ultimatum to Washington: ‘sovereignty or secession’”, according to a report by IL tea party organizer Robert Moon.

This is only the latest evidence of something I’ve been convinced of for weeks now: that secession is not merely a possibility, it is an inevitability, if things do not change. So why not leverage that looming threat to make some real progress, while averting the motivating cause for secession and thus preserving the Union?

My flyer from Patriot Academy promoting HJR28

I was recently in Austin, TX on the house floor acting as a state Representative in a mock legislature which is part of a conservative training program called Patriot Academy. The bill that I brought, HJR28, addressed this very issue:

1. By sending a clear “cease and desist” warning message to Washington with teeth–Texas means business (this was no ordinary resolution. House Joint Resolutions must be passed by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the senate).
2. By setting forth a specific list of potential violations of state and individual sovereignty, any three of which occurring within a 10-year time frame would trigger an automatic Texas secession.
3. By giving the people of Texas the opportunity to ratify the action.

This is truly a Texas-style way to telling Congress and the President that “we’re drawing a line in the sand and it stops here. We mean business.” (Unfortunately, it did not pass the House at Patriot Academy.)

Is this a bluff? No. Would Congress listen? I think so. But if they don’t start listening soon, I wholeheartedly advocate secession as a last resort to preserve our freedom.

Read the text of HJR28 below:

By: Hill, J. and Gattle, J.                     H.J.R. No. 28

A JOINT RESOLUTION

warning the Federal Government to cease and desist all acts of tyranny or precipitate a Texas Secession from the United States of America.

WHEREAS, the inalienable right of every Citizen of the United States of America to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is endowed by their Creator alone and that to protect these rights “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” and

WHEREAS, the people of Texas resent and decry the imperial attitude, profligate spending, and unconstitutional actions of all three branches of the Federal Government, and

WHEREAS, the outcome of the “War between the States” does not preclude the “inalienable right of the people to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient”:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

That if any three of the following actions are taken before January 1st, 2020 by any branch of the Federal Government, namely:

1. Enacting HB2454 (“Cap and Trade”) or similar legislation, or
2. Creating a Federal public option for providing healthcare,
3. Creation of a new tax or significantly raising the overall tax burden, or
4. Failing to enact H.R. 1207 (“Federal Reserve Transparency Act”) or similar legislation, or
5. Enacting H.R. 1964 (“Freedom of Choice Act”) or similar legislation to completely legalize abortion, or
6. Attempting to confiscate arms or taking any action abridging the right to self-defense, or
7. Passing any future legislation without full reading and adequate deliberation, or
8. Taking any action grossly violating any part of the Bill of Rights, or
9. Exhibiting any further behavior demonstrating no desire to decrease the power of the Federal Government and to increase the power of the States,

That the statehood of Texas shall be rescinded and the Republic of Texas shall have the sole right to govern the affairs of the people of Texas under a republican form of government, effective six months after the aforementioned conditions being met. Be it further resolved that this proposed Joint Resolution be submitted to the voters for ratification on the uniform election date established by the Texas Constitution.