Sen. Mark Udall says a bipartisan panel should tackle the federal deficit.

What Sen. Udall doesn't say is that the panel will be comprised of high-spending Democrats and high-spending Republicans. Who does he think has been doing the over-spending? The Senate just approved a $1.1 trillion spending bill, giving a 2 percent raise to federal employees when state and private-sector employees are receiving pay cuts and layoffs.

Congress also will soon vote on raising our debt ceiling and raising it enough this year so they won't have to raise it again in an election year. All of this points, not to frugality and restraint, but to cowardice and hypocrisy.

Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate race is giving the Republican Party a major morale boost as we approach the 2010 midterm elections. However, his victory is not an endorsement of the Republican Party. It is due to two related factors; the voter’s rejection of Obamacare and independent voter's rejection of the Democrat Party's move to the extreme left. Brown's victory may stop Obamacare, but it will not stop the Congress, whether dominated by Democrats or Republicans, from continuing to expand the Federal government at the expense of personal and economic freedom in America.

Independent voters should recognize the long-term failure of the U.S. Congress. Debt, deficits, and dollar devaluation continue without regard to which major party controls the Congress. Scott Brown may stop Obamacare, but he will become a captive of the Washington political machine. That machine will continue to be the real winner of any election won by a Democrat or a Republican. Our two-party system yields one-party results.

Voters in Colorado's 2nd Congressional district will have a real choice this fall. There will be a Democrat on the ballot pushing the far left agenda of Obama and Pelosi. There will be a Republican on the ballot with decent economic ideas, burdened by his party’s betrayal of its principles and narrow views of personal freedom and privacy. There will be a Libertarian on the ballot with a message of personal freedom, economic freedom, and limited government at as local a level as possible. Republicans with respect for personal liberty, Democrats with respect for a healthy economy and individual achievement, and Independents that usually face a choice between the lesser of two evils will have the opportunity to support a candidate that will not be compromised and swallowed by the Washington political machine.

Why is it that whenever there is something on the ballot that cuts out a small portion of the numerous taxes we pay, our local governments always threaten they will have to cut street maintenance and public safety to accommodate it?

How come we never hear them say, "if we don't get this money, we are going to have to cut funding to the golf course or the stadium or the art projects"?

The services we really do need and want are used as blackmail against us, in order to keep funding the things we don't want or need, or can't afford, but that our elected officials find to be more important than what they were actually elected to do. Extraneous "legacies" have taken precedence over basic services.

Amendments 60 and 61, and proposition 101 will strengthen the economy of the people, rather than the spending power of the government.

I want to talk with you about the State Sovereignty movement and Nullification. Our Founding Fathers secured for us a land of freedom and opportunity that has been the envy of the entire world, and sought to protect those freedoms and that opportunity with our Constitution. But the Constitution is not in itself the protection, only the means for us to protect ourselves.

It is quite clear the federal government is completely out of touch with those they are supposed to be serving. Yet the Constitution provides for us, the inheritors of the greatest system of government the world has ever known, a way to defend our rights. This is the tenth amendment! And while Amendment Ten has not stopped the power grab from all branches of the federal government, it does provide both the framework and the justification for "we the people" to maintain and defend our share of the power in our political system.

First you have to understand that power is a finite resource, meaning that as one group gains power, it must come from another group. In this case us. Make no mistake about it; a lot of laws passed in the last ninety six years have been about power. More to the point, it is about power that is going from "we the people", to the political class in Washington D.C.

So it is not enough to be against Nationalized Healthcare,
It is not enough to be against Cap and Trade,
It is not enough to be against the bailouts, against TARP, against the Patriot ACT, against No Child Left behind!
It is not enough to oppose activist judges legislating from the bench, or executive orders, or bureaucratic regulations or any other "laws" without the understanding that these "laws" were NOT passed in a legislative branch of Government as laid out in the Constitution. You must see that it is really about power, and you have to begin to recognize that this power has been taken from "we the people"!
How? Through apathy, indifference, and willful ignorance, we have let it be taken.

This brings us to the tenth amendment and Nullification.
Nullification is the idea that the people of the several States entered into a contract called the Constitution where the Federal Government was granted specific powers, most of which are found in Article One Section Eight. And that the states had not only a right, but an obligation to interpose or nullify laws passed by the Federal Government that go beyond those powers, and infringe upon the rights of "we the people". This idea is clearly spelled out by the Tenth 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.

It is common sense that the states must have some recourse available to them should the Federal Government overreach its powers, and infringe upon the liberty of "we the people". Does this sound crazy? Some notes on this idea from the founders before the Constitution was ratified:



The Federalist papers were never meant to define the Constitution; but to sell it to the general public to get it ratified. You see, the former colonist were not eager to trade a despotic centralized Government across the ocean for one on their own continent. Proof is self evident by the fact that they had to promise that a bill of rights would be added to get it ratified.

The Doctrine of Nullification was first introduced in 1798 in the Kentucky Resolution, written by Thomas Jefferson, and the Virginia resolution, written by James Madison. These were in response to the "Alien and Sedition acts". In case you didn't know, the "Alien and Sedition Acts", among other things made it illegal to criticize the Government. This doctrine was later adopted by Massachusetts and Wisconsin to nullify parts of the "Fugitive Slave ACT", and by South Carolina to nullify a tariff they believed harmful to their state economy, and by the New England states in response to embargos.
'What about the "Supremacy clause"?' The one that states the Federal Government is the Supreme law of the land.

1997 "Mack/Printz vs. the US" Where two County Sheriffs sued the Federal Government over the Brady Bill. This was a law that forced county Sheriffs to run background check on their citizens who bought handguns at the expense of the county, and any sheriff who did not comply with this law would be subject to arrest. These sheriffs argued that this law violated the tenth amendment. This case was heard and ultimately won before the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia writes for the majority, "…the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones." And in a direct challenge to this interpretation of the Supremacy clause, he writes, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" he also states "This separation of the two spheres is one of the constitution's structural protections of liberty. Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the federal government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front."

But there is really a supremacy clause, and it states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Persuance Thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

How about the Real ID Act, whereby the States had until May of 2008 to issue everyone of its citizens a national ID card complete with biometrics, resulting in the complete loss of privacy from the state. States who failed to comply by the deadline would see its citizens loose the ability to board an air plane or enter a federal building. It has been over a year since that deadline has passed, and I ask you, do any of you have a "real ID"? How many of you have entered a federal building or boarded an airplane in the last year? Do you know why? Because the states said NO!

Having read what I have written about States Rights and the Doctrine of Nullification, is there anyone who believe that this is a real and viable strategy in the fight to, not only secure the freedoms we still enjoy, but to take back the power that has always been our god given natural rights?

For those of you who have answered yes, here is a strategy for how we will win!

First, we must redirect the efforts from the Federal office holders who not only have ignored us, but hold us in contempt! And direct that energy towards the State Legislators. These people live here in our communities with us and have much less insulation from "we the people". We must get them to introduce and pass key laws including: nullifying both a National Healthcare act and Cap and Trade, an honest money act, to protect Coloradoans from the oncoming hyper-inflation that will be the result of this out of control spending. Furthermore we should follow Tennessee, whose legislators are introducing a bill which creates an escrow account whereby legal federal taxes are collected and held by the states as protection against federal backlash against our nullification efforts. Next we must have them introduce and pass legislation which will "build and impenetrable wall around the county sheriff and the second amendment" examples include "Sheriff First", "Extension of the Castle Doctrine", "Prohibition of Gun and Ammunition Tracking", and finally a "Firearms Freedom Act". This is laid out in detail in this article.

At some point as "we the people" work to make the Constitution relevant again, you will begin to hear the progressives and their puppets use the term "general welfare clause"

The general welfare clause has been interpreted by those favoring a strong central government to mean that as long as the law was meant to be in the "general welfare" of the union, congress has the authority to pass it. The argument against this is the Virginia plan, which was introduced by Madison at the Constitutional Convention. This plan would have created a National Government that gave the central government the authority to do anything it wanted. It is important to remember this plan was rejected by the delegation, and more importantly, it was never ratified by "we the people".

James Madison, considered the 'father of the Constitution' and the author of the defeated Virginia plan, stated the following about this interpretation of the "general welfare clause":

"Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them."

Think on that a second. Now let me give you one of my favorite quotes from James Madison:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

This should help to explain where we are today and how we got here, and hopefully what we need to do next.

Will it be easy? No. Every step of the way not only will enemies of Freedom tells us this won't work, but even our friends, who should be on our side will say it is impossible. The Central Government is too big to take on!

Will there be risk? Yes. We will be taking on the most powerful "empire" in the world today, and you can be sure that they will not give up all this power without a fight. But I ask you to consider what dangers our founding fathers faced, surely this pales in comparison.

I think Samuel Adams said it best when he said this:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better then the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

I want to leave you all with a few closing thoughts. Remember;
It is about your future,
It is about your children’s future,
It is about your grandchildren’s future,
It is about control,
It is especially about power, and finally...
It is about TIME people were willing to stand up for themselves and do more then just complain to our would be masters for better treatment. And begin to assert the power that is our god given birth right as American Patriots!

The Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) requires that every bill must specify its source of Constitutional authority. Since our previous report in December, four more Representatives have signed on as sponsors of the EPA.

You can find the 60 House sponsors here.

And the 22 Senate sponsors here.

The problem is, many in Congress don't want to be bothered with this simple requirement. They think that anything Congress passes must be Constitutional. Let's persuade them to change their minds, with our arguments and our pressure.

You can use this letter as an example . . .

I think I know why so many in Congress want to ignore the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA). The attitude was expressed by Sen. Burris and Rep. Anna Eshoo in replies to constituents published at DownsizeDC.org.

Sen. Roland W. Burris says, "I believe the genius of our Constitution rests in its timeless applicability. There is no better example of this than the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause. Instead of the powers of Congress being confined to outdated principles and issues, the Necessary and Proper clause expands the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers."

Burris's position is scary. "Tangentially" means "Merely touching or slightly connected; Only superficially relevant; divergent."

How can the "superficially relevant" be necessary and proper?

Indeed, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not give Congress the sweeping authority Burris imagines. It instead authorizes Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing (i.e., "enumerated") Powers." The Enumerated Powers Act doesn't overrule the Necessary and Proper Clause, it only demands that the appropriate "enumerated power" be cited in the bill.

Burris goes on: "As your Senator, I can assure you that Congressional power is only used to make decisions that are intended to benefit the American people."

Sen. Burris believes that the Necessary and Proper Clause means Congress can do whatever it wants because its intentions are good.

If the federal government was to be unlimited in its powers as Burris suggests, then why didn't the Framers give Congress absolute, unlimited powers to begin with?

Rep. Eshoo's response isn't much better. "H.R. 450 would require Congress to adhere to the perspective that unless something is specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it is prohibited. Based on my understanding of the Constitution . . . I disagree."

But H.R. 450 doesn't adhere to a "perspective." It just requires a citation of the Constitutional clause that authorizes the new law.

In this sense, passing the Enumerated Powers Act is actually in Congress's best interest. If Congress won't explicitly state the source of the Constitutional authority for a law they pass, why should Congress expect the Supreme Court to uphold it?

She goes on: "America's Constitution has often been described as a 'living, breathing document,' specifically designed by our forefathers to allow flexibility to manage our nation within the rule of law."

I'm sorry, but this "living, breathing" business is code for "the Constitution gives us as much power as we want to have." This is not "within the rule of law," this undermines the rule of law. The Constitution is only supposed to change by amendment, not by Congressional dictate.

Rep. Eshoo asserts: "The original U.S. Constitution never anticipated industrial factories, let alone airplanes and the Internet."

Actually, as written it did make room for such things. It gave Congress jurisdiction over *interstate* commercial air traffic. It gave Congress jurisdiction over the *interstate* shipment of goods.

And she says, "I assure you that I would never sponsor, cosponsor or support a bill that I considered unconstitutional in nature. I also would not support legislation that weakened one branch of government in favor of another, thereby undermining the very premise of the "checks and balances" concept which was crafted so carefully by our forefathers . . ."

But by what other standard does she consider bills constitutional or unconstitutional, aside from the text itself? She doesn't say.

The responses of Burris and Eshoo scare me. They believe they can do whatever they want with my life, liberty, and property, and they'll call it Constitutional.

If you don't sponsor and vote for the Enumerated Powers Act, then, frankly, you scare me too.

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

We would also like to thank the following DC Downsizers who last week contributed to further our work . . .

1-time donations: George Autry, Thomas Skeese, Dave Schrock, Robert Taylor, Jordan Voellinger, Charles Parrott III -- there were also 8 donors who requested to be unlisted

You can make a contribution or start a monthly pledge here.

As we all know, the LPCO has been struggling for many years now to develop a solid and consistent financial base. When I served on the LPCO Board of Directors (BoD), I was a 1776 Club Member, donating a minimum of $17.76 each month to the LPCO. And I remain a 1776 Club member today.

But I am somewhat disappointed that while we have several long-time activists who are 1776 Club members, several on our current Board are not. I can certainly understand that a Board Member may justify not contributing a monthly donation because they are investing their personal time and energy. But $17.76 per month (about 60 cents a day) is an incredibly small investment for our Party. I challenge every member of our Board to lead through example by becoming a 1776 Club member!

Similarly, upon reading through the list of candidates seeking nomination from the LPCO next month, I see very few who are 1776 club members. LPCO activists invested a great deal of personal time, energy and money in working to help our Party gain ballot access. Otherwise our candidates would be forced to gather petition signatures simply to be on the ballot. Is this not worth 60 cents a day as a simple recognition of their efforts? Why should I, as a LPCO convention delegate, vote for ANY candidate who is not willing to invest in the Party that they are seeking a nomination from? Therefore, I challenge EVERY candidate seeking a nomination from the LPCO to become a 1776 Club member.

• I resolve to persevere in the struggle for freedom that many Americans have undertaken tirelessly, and in some cases have given their lives for.
• I resolve to vote for Libertarian candidates whenever I can.
• I resolve to keep reminding people that every vote for a Libertarian makes a difference.
• I resolve to thank Libertarians who amplify their voice for liberty by running for office.
• I resolve to congratulate Libertarian candidates who win their races, and thank Libertarian candidates who did not win but helped to spread the Libertarian message and to lay the groundwork for future Libertarian wins.
• I resolve to thank Libertarian volunteers who help the Libertarian Party and our candidates in whatever ways they can.
• I resolve not to forget that Republicans voted for the banker bailouts and Medicare expansion, and that Democrats voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.
• I resolve not to be fooled by "independent" organizations who say they want to "take back government for the people," but who really just want to use government power for their own purposes.
• I resolve to keep the Libertarian Party door open for those who have worked through other organizations to promote liberty, but decided they might get a bigger bang for their buck working through the Libertarian Party.
• I resolve to contribute financially to the National LP, and to at least one state and county affiliate, and to at least one Libertarian Party candidate.

If you have not yet become a member of the Libertarian Party and wish to do so, please click here and join the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. If you need to renew, please click here. If you would like to make a contribution separate from membership, please click here.

Tonight's speech was a reminder that, for decades, the policies of Republicans and Democrats alike have failed. Libertarians are asking people to take matters into their own hands. Instead of just complaining, we're encouraging ordinary Americans to step up and run for Congress on the Libertarian Party ballot line.

I can say exactly the same thing about President Obama's speech tonight that I said about George W. Bush's State of the Union speech in January 2008: 'Tonight's State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government's intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy.'

I am weary of the President's unspoken premise that only government--indeed, only the federal government--can accomplish good in our society.

President Obama seems to be totally blind to the concept that government can cause problems rather than solve them. His speech was filled with 'More': more handouts, more spending, more programs, more bailouts, more regulations. We Libertarians want less government, not more.

Not to be outmatched by the Democrats, the Republican Party conveyed its lack of seriousness in addressing this nation's government spending problems by having Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor for eleven (11) days, deliver its rebuttal to the President. If they were really serious about addressing the dire fiscal circumstances of this nation, they would have had Paul Ryan, a six-term congressman from Wisconsin, who has proposed the most serious plan of anyone in the two older parties to keep us from going off a fiscal cliff.

Last week, Alan Auerbach, Professor of Economics and Law at UC Berkeley and US government fiscal policy expert, said that the Democratic and Republican parties are in a 'death embrace' with their government spending. The only political party that is rationally and forthrightly addressing the need to cut government spending and end our culture of ever expanding entitlements is the Libertarian Party.

As Americans lose hope in Obama, we Libertarians are warning voters against running back to the Republicans who got us into such big messes in the first place. Republicans started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans made the false intellectual case for bailing out banks and car companies. Republicans argued that deficits don't matter. Republicans gave us the giant Medicare expansion bill.

The President's suggestion of a 'spending freeze' was especially ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of Americans. The amounts involved are minuscule, and Congress won't accept them anyway. Will Obama sign the spending bills that ignore his 'freeze'? You bet he will. Instead, the President should demand across-the-board cuts in all areas, including entitlements.

The President talked a lot about jobs. Unfortunately, the policies he supports are responsible for most of the unemployment we see today. High taxes, minimum wage laws, hiring regulations, firing regulations, mandatory unemployment benefits, and other government interference make it much more difficult for businesses to hire and keep employees. As expected, the President's prescription is to increase the dosage of this government poison.

While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with steps like these:

1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan;
2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts;
3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work.

Finally, on the matter of political rhetoric, I call upon the two older parties to stop spoon feeding politics to the American people as if we are a bunch of overgrown children. These are difficult times that call for more than rhetorical flourish or positioning a group of diverse people around a politician. Older party politicians need to be specific about their proposed policies, as Libertarians are.