Now that we have more daylight hours, the weekly rallies will be returning to Friday evenings starting this Friday. If you are free this Friday evening or any Friday night in the next months, please join these great folks at the corner of Highway 50 and Highway 47 in Union at 5:30 p.m. The response we hear from those who drive by is simply amazing and motivating.

As has been stressed before, please do not use the parking area in Walgreens. The First Baptist Church has a commuter area that we may park in.

Again, these rallies will no longer take place on Saturday afternoons. The Saturday afternoon rally is being replaced by Friday evenings. So bring you signs and flags to the corner of Highway 47 and Highway 50 at 5:30 p.m. in Union.

Primary season is the time in which the people have the opportunity to help direct where America is going by vetting and choosing the best man or woman to represent the people, the one for whom you can fight and get behind. The days of waiting until November to inform ourselves about the candidates are over!

This is an important part of the process and a great way to hear and meet the candidates running for the U.S. Senate here in Missouri in 2010. It’s also an opportunity for the grassroots people to unite behind a candidate that truly represents our values and beliefs.

In the interest of non-partisanship,there will be a separate forum for each political party that will have a contested primary. The following parties will have a part in the forum: Republican, Democrat, Constitution and Libertarian.

Our nation is in critical condition. This is an opportunity that will enable patriots from across the state to work together in this primary season to vet and put our support behind the man or woman that we feel best represents the voice of the people and the Constitution.

We hope that you will join in supporting and building momentum behind a true U.S. Senate candidate vetting process. This is not an event that you want to miss!

Seating is limited, so please RSVP if you are able to attend.
Visit www.mosenate.com for more information.

Missouri Senate Candidate Forum:
Date: March 20th
Time: 2:00 pm – 6:30 pm
Location: Truman Hotel
1510 Jefferson Street
Jefferson City, MO 65109-2009

We must see the Health Care Freedom Act through to the end.  We must show the Missouri General Assembly that we the people want the opportunity to vote on this issue. This measure is an important step to standing up to the Federal Government regarding our Health Care.

We will meet on the third floor rotunda at 10:00 a.m. to register and pick up the “lobbying packets” for you to deliver to your own state senator, state representative and others in leadership in the Missouri General Assembly. At noon we will meet back in the third floor rotunda to hear from the sponsors of the resolutions – Sen. Jane Cunningham and Rep. Tim Jones, leadership from both the House and the Senate and Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, supporter of Missouri Sovereignty.

The Missouri Health Care Freedom Act is our best tool to stand up to the federal government’s takeover of our health care! We must act now!

We need to show up and show the Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields that we the people want the chance to vote on this issue! He must see that we will not let one man stand in the way of standing up to the Federal Government regarding our Health Care!!

**UPDATES**

Below is Senator Shields’ contact information. He needs to know that Missourians want the opportunity to vote on the Health Care Freedom Act!

Call Senator Shields at (573) 751-9476
Fax Senator Shields at (573) 526-4765
Email Senator Shields at charlie_shields@senate.mo.gov

**MORE UPDATES**

From Annette at I Heard the People Say

I am so excited to report that there has been progress in moving the Health Care Freedom Act SJR25 forward to protect Missourians from federal health care mandates.

Sen. Charlie Shields is putting the bill on the Senate calendar TODAY!

Sen. Shields will address the “Check Up” rally tomorrow, so let’s show our appreciation at that time with encouragement to the leadership and all the senators to do all they can to get SJR25 to a vote of The People!

If anyone is interested in carpooling or needs a ride, please let us know. We have had some who have offered to drive.

Wednesday, March 17
10 am – 1 pm
Missouri State Capitol
Third Floor Rotunda

Reading our site here and the right-leaning blogosphere there is a lot of anxiety out there about the 2010 decennial census.

During the 2000 decennial I was an employee of the Census Bureau, I don’t put that out as a boast or qualification but rather in the interests of full disclosure, and I’d like to give you my perspective.

The census is required by the Constitution. If fact, if one is a supporter of originalism it is actually one of the few domestic functions of the federal government extant today that is required. It’s purpose is to ensure the mathematical integrity of the House of Representatives and prevent the United States from being infested with a system of rotten boroughs and unrepresented cities which was common in England at the time.

Now a strong case can be made that the Census long form is very intrusive. It its defense one can only point out that a) every question asked is required by federal law to be asked, b) everyone in the Census Bureau knows that the long form is too long, and c) we’ve been on this glide path ever since the Census started asking the names of members of households, their ages, occupations, and places of birth in 1850. One also has to point out that governments at all levels make decisions about schools, hospitals, representation, roads, zoning, land use, etc. based on the federal census. The fact that you don’t like some of those programs or uses of census data is really not germane, the question is do you want those programs to operate based on good information or not-so-good information.

Having said that, there is no legal requirement that you be participate. US Marshals are not going to show up and take you away to be waterboarded if you refuse to participate. If you chose not to, eventually a low-paid, temporarily employed, human enumerator will show up at your house to chat with you. If you turn them away they’ll ask your neighbors the questions about your household that you refuse to answer. So while you have the choice to not cooperate you really don’t have the choice of not being enumerated. It is for that reason that while I am philosophically in tune with the whole declare-your-race-as-American idea (other than the fact that American is a nationality not a race), I think it is doomed to be crushed by the process of physical interviews of households and their neighbors.

Everyone has to use their own prudential judgment in deciding whether or not they will cooperate with the Census. But as you are making that decision you have to decide for yourself how not cooperating moves our cause forward one whit.

There you have it. I confess. I’m a big government squish. I’m a fan of the Census Bureau. I can’t imagine how a developed society functions without a regular census (if you use MapQuest or have a GPS device in your car you also need to think about who actually keeps that underlying database of addresses linked to GPS grid coordinates up to date). My family will participate and do so apologetically. Your choice is yours.

This from Mark Krikorian:

Fully one-quarter of the space on this year’s form is taken up with questions of race and ethnicity, which are clearly illegitimate and none of the government’s business (despite the New York Times’ assurances to the contrary on today’s editorial page). So until we succeed in building the needed wall of separation between race and state, I have a proposal. Question 9 on the census form asks “What is Person 1’s race?” (and so on, for other members of the household). My initial impulse was simply to misidentify my race so as to throw a monkey wrench into the statistics; I had fun doing this on the personal-information form my college required every semester, where I was a Puerto Rican Muslim one semester, and a Samoan Buddhist the next. But lying in this constitutionally mandated process is wrong. Really — don’t do it.

Instead, we should answer Question 9 by checking the last option — “Some other race” — and writing in “American.” It’s a truthful answer but at the same time is a way for ordinary citizens to express their rejection of unconstitutional racial classification schemes. In fact, “American” was the plurality ancestry selection for respondents to the 2000 census in four states and several hundred counties.

So remember: Question 9 — “Some other race” — “American”. Pass it on.

Scott Johnson at Power Line reminds us of De Crevecoeur’s Letter from an American Farmer:

In Letter III of his Letters From an America Farmer (1782), J. Hector St. John De Crevecoeur famously asked: “What then is the American, this new man?” He answered: “He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He has become an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all races are melted into a new race of man, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world. Americans are the western pilgrims.” (More on De Crevecoeur here.)

She also reminded us of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous passage about hyphenated Americanism:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all… The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic… There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

Read the entire post here.

Are the members of the 10th Amendment efforts supporting federalism or states’ rights? Should we link ourselves to John C. Calhoun and the notion of secessionism and abolishment or to restoration and original meaning as intended during the formation of our country? Do we deny the power of the federal government or simply stand against federal usurpation beyond their supreme authority under the U.S. Constitution? Is it our goal to require states to resume their power and authority afforded them in the protection of people’s rights to life, liberty, and property or to merely resist law and threaten to walk away if we are not given our way?

Last year a group of concerned citizens gathered to form a core group focused on state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. Among the many agenda items was the naming of the group. Most were moved to create a name that included states’ rights. Initially my stance was against the name, historically states’ rights does not have the longevity or overall meaning encompassing our founders’ debate over the concept of federalism.

Most in the group were emotionally engaged by using the term states’ rights and I rationalized a compromise early would allow opportunity for clarification as we moved forward. It was an error on my part and it is time to correct the error as the enemies of the 10th Amendment too easily misdirect our debate away from federalism and into areas such as secession and racism.

Foundationally, states don’t have rights as a government, states have power. Power at the federal and state level is derived from the consent of the governed, the people, who do have rights our governing agreements were designed to protect. Inspired by careful historical study, years of debate, considerations, and the declarations of colonies, towns, and associations (prior to July of 1776) the fundamental rights of the people were articulated in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – That to secure 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 abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Emphasis added)

These words guided the early efforts in developing state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation. During the war and the years following its end many colonists realized the Articles of Confederation were inadequate or destructive to the ends of protecting the people under the general government. The initial confederation was simply not strong enough, though many would applaud that as a strength, due to the fear a strong federal government would eventually usurp the self-governing right of the people under their state constitutions (social compacts) subverting states’ power.

The Montesquieu concept of federalism, rejected when John Adams proposed it as a federal structure in 1776, was gaining favor as the states, under the Articles of Confederation, were moving toward a destructive end. Massachusetts’s constitution was framed under the concept and was a solid example of success. With an eye toward altering the federal agreement initially, the Constitutional Convention ( held in 1787) closed its doors so honest, heated debate could allow those assembled unfettered consideration of plans calling for the abolishing of the Articles and the creation of a new federal constitution aimed at delivering better safety and happiness for the people in all states.

Federalism was at the heart of these debates. When they concluded there were many learned, patriotic members who were convinced the constitution, sent to the states for ratifying debates and votes, went too far even if the original agreement did not go far enough.

If the great fear and prediction of these men – that the general government would entirely subvert the state governments, with a consequent loss of personal freedom – has not been realized, it will nevertheless be seen in the following pages that many of their objections were embodied in the future amendments, and the disregard of others has occasioned some of our most serious national questions. (Paul Leicester Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, 1888, p. vii) (Emphasis added)

Supporting the stronger approach for a general government were Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, John Jay, and other respected patriots. Opposing the stronger approach, out of fear federalism would be lost to nationalism, were Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and still more whose names have been lost to our modern knowledge yet men highly respected in these formative times.

Writing under the title of “An American Citizen” Tench Coxe produced four letters which were among the first to be published in support of the constitution. His letters were aimed at citizens of Philadelphia with the same purpose as the better known Federalist Papers aimed at the citizens of New York during the time the U.S. Constitution had been submitted to each state for consideration. He was a member of the Annapolis Convention as well as the Continental Congress, and had written several pamphlets focused on the finance and commerce of the United States. He believed bicameral protection would guard against the usurpation of states’ powers. Speaking of senators he wrote;

They will also feel a considerable check from the constitutional powers of the state legislatures, whose rights they will not be disposed to infringe, since they are the bodies to which they owe their existence, and are moreover to remain the immediate guardians of the people. (Letter Number II, On the safety of the people, from the restraints imposed upon the Senate, Sep. 17, 1787, Quoted from Paul Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, 1888, p.140) (Emphasis added)

Here Mr. Coxe mentions the rights of states yet his main focus is on the constitutional powers reserved to the states under the proposed federal constitution. In referencing ‘whose rights’ it is likely the rights of citizens within the state he was considering as this was the common thought of the times, people have rights while government has power, whether discussing federal or state government. His comments surrounding a call for a bill of rights were focused on his (and others) belief a federal level bill of rights was unnecessary and would create confusions of power since state constitutions were designed for the daily protection of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Listen to the explanation of this guardianship through proper implementation of the concept of separation of powers combined with checks and balances (part of the Montesquieu concept referenced above);

Besides the securities for the liberties of the people arising out of the federal government, they are guarded by their state constitutions, and by the nature of things in the separate states. The Governor or President in each commonwealth, the Councils, Senates, Assemblies, Judges, Sheriffs, Grand and Petit Juries, Officers of Militia…and many other officers of power and influence, will still be chosen within each state, without any possible interference of the federal government. The separate states will also choose all the members of the legislative and executive branches of the United States…Whether a majority of the Senate, each of whom will be chosen by the legislature of a free, sovereign and independent state, without any stipulation in favour of wealth or the contemptible distinctions of birth or rank, and who will be closely observed by the state legislatures, can destroy our liberties, controuled (sic) as they are too by the house of representatives? or whether a temporary, limited, executive officer, watched by the federal Representatives, by the Senate, by the state legislatures, by his personal enemies among the people of his own state, by the jealousy of the people of rival states, and by the whole of the people of the Union, can ever endanger our Freedom. (Ibid, p. 152-153)(Emphasis added)

Discussing the securities for people’s liberties was of fundamental meaning. The reason societies enter social compacts is for the unified protection of people’s rights against other societies that eye those rights as their own. We would not constitutionally align with each other if we were all of the virtuous nature of never interfering with one another’s life, liberty, and property. We would live, commercially interact, and socialize in the security of freedom without government. Yet we know this is not the nature of humanity. Since it is not in our nature to live as angels we must suffer to attempt governing with the least impact on our daily lives, at least that was the initial goals of our founders under the U.S. Constitution when it came to the federal or general government and its interaction with the states.

We the People of the United States,

1. in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. establish Justice,
3. insure domestic Tranquility,
4. provide for the common defence,
5. promote the general Welfare,
6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Preamble)

Opponents felt even with the safeguards Coxe saw so clearly there were too many ways the devilish side of mankind could still interfere by usurping power and subjugating states and people. Factional interference was a key concern (which we see today at the root of the breakdown in the checks and balance system initially implemented) despite the Bill of Rights opponents fought to have included. It is interesting the historical debate over federalism led, in fact, to the first two major parties (another word for faction or special interest group) and the process of elections was altered early on with the ratification of the 12th Amendment.

One opponent, George Mason, was standing against the constitution at the risk of losing his long standing friendship with many including his neighbor, George Washington. Washington and Mason worked closely in organizing the non-importation efforts during the resistance to the Townshend Acts in the 1760s, were instrumental in writing the Virginia Declaration of Rights in the 1770s, and now in the late 1780s their friendship would be strained over Mason’s insistence without a bill of rights and stronger efforts to end slavery Virginia should not ratify the proposed document. It was his pen that is credited with much of the content of Bill of Rights based largely on his Virginia Declaration of Rights, which he is given large credit for in addition to credit for much of the Constitution of Virginia. On October 7th, 1787 he sent a letter to Washington outlining his objections as he stated, “You will readily observe, that my objections are not numerous…though in my mind some of them are capital ones.” Nor could Richard Henry Lee who felt the general government controlled too much power of the purse and sword to effectively protect the state powers and citizen rights from federal usurpation.

The debate over federalism would be calmed during the first meeting of the new Congress of the United States where James Madison led an effort to review over 200 proposed amendments, forwarded 12 amendments to the states for ratification, and eventually secured 10 new amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Key to the overall success of these 10 amendments were the final two. These were considered by Thomas Jefferson and others to be the very foundation for future success of the union formed under the U.S. Constitution. These foundational amendments are;

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

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.

As the new country began to operate under the guidelines set forth many challenges would occur keeping the debate of federalism alive. The Aliens and Sedition Acts would lead to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions creating what is known today as the Principles of ‘98. Jefferson’s embargo of 1807 to 1809 led New England states to band together and when the federal courts declared the embargo constitutional the Massachusetts assembly challenge the ruling. The War of 1812 would cause Connecticut and Massachusetts to refuse to send their militias as they believed the federal government acted unconstitutionally despite all three federal branches claiming their actions were constitutional.

So went the struggles of power between the federal and state governments with the inherent strength of checks and balances and the separation of powers.

According to Professor Eugene Hickok, the idea of states’ rights came much later, during the Nullification Crisis. Centered around the crisis was the issue of slavery and the improper treatment of South Carolina and other southern states at the hands of merchant concerns of the northern states. John Calhoun resigned the Vice-Presidency of the United States over a dispute with President Andrew Jackson.

The dispute centered on tariffs in amounts up to 50% on European goods. Calhoun worked on the “South Carolina Exposition and Protest” secretly while serving under John Q. Adams as vice-president. The resolution focused on the protest of South Carolina yet never passed as the assembly chose to wait for the new president, Jackson, to take office since they believed he would remove the tariffs. Hickok writes, “[b]ut it was widely distributed and read and became the conceptual and philosophical basis for the idea of nullification and “states’ rights” in the years leading up to the Civil War.” (Why States? The Challenge of Federalism, 2007, p. 44)

It is from this beginning history of state’s rights our opponents to federalism, state’s powers, and the duty of all those taking an oath to uphold our constitution like to point to. The effort is to easily paint those supporting our 10th Amendment as people who merely want to return to the days of slavery, separation, elitism, and turmoil. This is, in part, the fault of those of us involved in today’s efforts. We too easily use the label of states’ rights in defining our efforts when federalism or states’ power is more accurate and harder for our opponents to attack in an easy manner with history to back up their claims.

Members of the 10th Amendment effort support federalism. We must understand states’ don’t have rights but an obligation to use their governing power to defend their citizens’ rights whenever federal power oversteps its enumerated obligations. We are not secessionist, nor are we abolitionists but rather restorationists devoted to our original meaning and the foundational strength of the 9th and 10th Amendments combined with an acceptance of personal responsibility.

We honor the federal laws as supreme laws of the land when they are pursuant to, and in keeping with, the U.S. Constitution while we oppose all efforts for federal laws and mandates beyond their granted powers no matter what moral clothing they are dressed in. Unconstitutional law, even if clothed in good intention, is still bad law and the states are obligated to check it, and declare it as such. If an unconstitutional law is so universally good as to benefit the general welfare of all citizens in all states let the processes of Article V be invoked. Until such time we stand by the duty of states’ powers to protect us for many unconstitutional laws and mandates that began with good intentions have crippled our economy and usurped authority far beyond original meaning.

Let every member of every organization supporting state sovereignty and federalism cleanse the language so our opponents cannot easily attack the wrong target. Should they target federalism and the original meaning we can defeat them with truth. Freedom is not outdated, federal government is an agreement among the people of different sovereign states, the 10th Amendment has never been repealed, and virtue is still necessary for securing our posterity’s future rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Representative Akin invites all tea party groups, independent conservatives and those citizens who oppose President Obama’s health care plans to attend a special rally at 9:45 AM this Wednesday, March 10, at the St Charles County Convention Center. This rally on Wednesday, the same day the President is scheduled to come to St Louis , can send a clear message that we don’t want his version of health care reform. If we have a large enough turnout at the Wednesday rally we WILL send that message loud and clear.

Rally admission is free. There will be a wide screen presentation from Washington targeting the health care issue by Representative Todd Akin, Minority Leader John Boehner, MO Lt Governor Peter Kinder and many other key Republicans.

**UPDATES**

From the St. Louis Tea Party

PLEASE PLAN TO BE ON 9TH STREET BETWEEN LUCAS AND DELMAR AT 5:00 P.M. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10.  MANY WILL BE  GATHERING TO PROTEST PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLANS TO CRAM HEALTH CONTROL DOWN OUR THROATS.

Continue to watch the St. Louis Tea Party website for updates.

from Michael Boldin at The Tenth Amendment Center:

The Missouri State House has passed House Joint Resolution 48 (HJR48). The legislation, known as the “Missouri Health Care Freedom Act” seeks to make public policy for the state that every person within the state of Missouri is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal government of the United States of America.

Here’s the official summary of the bill:

Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment prohibits any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system. Individuals and employers may pay directly for lawful health care services without being subject to fines or penalties, and health care providers can accept payment for health care services from individuals or employers without being subject to fines or penalties. The purchase or sale of health care insurance in private health care systems cannot be prohibited by law or rule.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution codifies in law that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers – and that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserve “to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

The founders, during the time of the Constitution’s ratification, made clear that a vast majority of regulatory powers would be left in the states – including social services, agriculture, mining, and more. Click here to read more.

The resolution passed by a vote of 113-40, and is awaiting transmittal to the State Senate.

In an update to supporters, the resolution’s primary sponsor, State Rep. Jane Cunningham, pledged to see the effort through:

“I sincerely appreciate all those who have come out and shown their support, and all those who have shown an interest in the issue. Each of you has my word that I will fight tirelessly until our constitutional rights in Missouri are fully protected from federal encroachment.”

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s health care nullification legislative tracking page

Chris is remaining very positive about qualifying for the program in the near future:

Although Missouri is not among this group of finalists, we are not discouraged.  We intend to keep pushing to implement significant and timely school reform measures in Missouri.

From the outset, we knew the competition for RT3 funding would be intense, and that most states would not be successful in the first phase.  We worked very hard, though, to put together a bold, comprehensive proposal that provides clear direction for our work in the months ahead.  We are receiving excellent feedback on our proposals, which will help us refine our application for second-round funding.  There will be money left for states that chose to enter the Phase 2 competition.  The second-round applications are due June 1.

We are creating five state-level “work groups” to assist us in strengthening our proposal in five key areas that are part of our RT3 application.  This work is beginning immediately, and we invite interested stakeholders to be part of this process.

As a reminder, Sandra Davidson is hosting a Town Hall Meeting about Race to the Top at the Sullivan Elementary School Gymnasium on Washington Street on Monday, March 8th at 7:00pm.

Other speakers at the meeting will include Kasey Brzycki, education adviser for the Missouri Sovereignty Project, and Brian Nieves, State Representative from the 98th District.

The Warren County Patriots are also hosting a town hall about RTTT Thursday, March 11, 6:30 PM at the Belle Star Theater (112 E. Booneslick – Warrenton, Missouri) with State Representative Brian Nieves and Kasey Brzycki.

Purgason is one of nine candidates who have filed for the Republican nomination in the United States Senate.

***UPDATE***

Listen to the audio below of Senator Purgason presenting SJR 29.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4: