September 10, 2010
In June of 1997 Sheriffs Jay Printz of Montana and Richard Mack of Arizona, properly embarrassed the federal government by winning a 5-4 Supreme Court decision finding key provisions of the Brady Law unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds. The 10th Amendment reads: “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.”
This landmark victory for state sovereignty by upholding the 10th Amendment, limits federal power within the states to it’s prescribed Constitutional parameters — not just firearms legislation alone, but all federal mandates, funded or unfunded. The court held that the states cannot be coerced into any federal mandate that is not supported directly by constitutional provisions granting that federal power.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
There’s a reason why most have not heard of this 1997 decision. It was quickly swept out of the media, by Bill Clinton and that inconvenient stain on Monica Lewinski’s blue dress. Only now, is the meaning of this decision seeing the light of day.
Question: “Does this ruling mean that mandates, such as the educational ones proposed in the No Child Left Behind Act cannot be forced on the states?”
Yes, and any found by the State’s Federal Oversight Committee to be beyond the federal powers enumerated in Article I section 8, as well as those that cannot be adjusted to comply with the constitutional federal guidelines, therefore, are not enforceable upon the states. It can be demonstrated, to the chagrin of federal education wonks, that since the first federal education laws were implemented in the last half of the 20th Century, America has experienced steady decline in student test scores. From number one in the world, to what is now the lowest in our nation’s history.
Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997) implies, that a creation by the Constitution, namely the federal government, cannot become more powerful than the Constitution itself. Therefore, the Welfare Clause (often cited for implementation of federal education programs), cannot be used to sanction the wholesale commandeering of the states at federal gunpoint to implement over-arching, make-worse, cookie cutter style programs. Programs of single minded globalization, that ‘dumb down’ a state’s children to an unacceptable minimum federal standard. One they’ve methodically been working toward for decades no doubt.
The ‘federal usurpers’ also wrongly cite the Supremacy Clause as yet another source of sweeping federal power. The Supremacy Clause grants the federal government no such power at all. This Clause merely states that the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, is supreme LAW in all cases in precedent, policy, treaty, and law, NOT the Federal government or any of it’s branches or agencies.
Question: “…all mandates? Some of those things are connected to much needed money for the states.”
With certain constitutional exceptions the states alone have the power to tax. We know now that the Federal Income Tax goes exclusively to pay the interest on the fraudulent Federal Debt. It filters through the FED directly to the global banking elite, doubtless to maintain their island paradise fortresses. Then, the FED prints and loans more money to the federal government, at interest on the people’s back, to fund new federal programs, trickle-down to the states, which devalue the dollar while increasing the interest and the national Debt. It’s a Global bankers get rich ponzi scheme par excellence.
All federal programs not supported by the Constitution, should be curtailed immediately, and state programs should be implemented and funded with money kept here in the states, rather than sent to the FED to fund No-Win-wars and globalist opulence.
Take advantage of one of nature’s most hardworking nutrients with Vasobeet now at 40% off!