I’m sure it began long before our obsession with self-esteem. So consumed we became with making sure our kids’ feelings were never hurt, we lost all reason and understanding and began teaching that exceptionalism wasn’t “fair”. (Oh, there’s the four-letter word that should be banned.)

Was it diversity? We were being indoctrinated that diversity was admirable, that some was good and more was better. Lost in all this was the importance of retaining identity, for without identity how can a child’s self-esteem have a foundation?

I’m afraid it all began a long time ago. Little by little we lost the focus of what made America great.

Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison and Edward Rutledge, are only a few of the exceptional people who signed our Declaration of Independence. One trait that made them exceptional was their desire for and understanding of freedom. They didn’t want to be like England or any other. They wanted to be like America.

John Adams at a very young age wrote of his dreams that someday America would be the greatest nation on earth, not to look down on others but to draw them up unto this country’s greatness. Adams’ dream came true. America did become the greatest nation on earth, doing more to help other people than any other nation. It came from liberty, the freedom to excel, the desire to be the best of the best. It was called exceptionalism. It is what made America a magnet that draws others to come here. Why do we want to extinguish the magnetism?

As I sat yesterday and watched the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderone, stand at the stage of the greatest legislative conclave on earth, the symbol of liberty and everything great, and ridicule America while members of that Congress stood in applause for such treasonous, anti-American sentiments, I wondered if the above mentioned exceptional men had been sitting in that audience, what their reaction would have been.

As President Barack Obama stood outside the White House with Calderone, in what certainly appeared to be an affirmation from our President of his hatred toward America, I pictured George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson gathered amongst the bushes of the Rose Garden, standing in utter disbelief.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

But liberty comes with responsibility, the restraint of exploiting our rights over those of others.

Our own Declaration of Independence tells us the truth of liberty is self-evident. In the struggle for independence, these brave people, as penned by Thomas Jefferson, understood that under the tyranny of King George III, some people were created more equal than others and that any liberties were those granted by the King. This stood in stark contrast to the written Word of God.

Jefferson wrote that “We hold these truths to be self-evident“, those truths being as I’ve described above, “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.”

What is all too often lost in the recitation of the above, most common phrase from the Declaration of Independence, is Jefferson’s explanation of how to protect these rights. He further goes on to write that, “Governments are instituted among Men, driving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” He says that when any government “becomes destructive” of these rights, it’s the right of the people to fix it, even to the point of installing a new government, such as was the intent of seeking independence from England.

When our society progresses away from God and good sound morals, the entire foundation of the Declaration and Constitution, gets shaken, can crumble and fall down. And therein lies the ultimate destruction of individual Liberty.

God has blessed us with some of the most incredible beauty that can be found in the outdoors. I was raised in the country and find much peace and happiness in going to the woods, however the only lasting peace and happiness comes from within, that which is occupied by the love of God.

As much as I love to hunt and fish and just be in the outdoors, that Liberty does not trump another man’s Creator-endowed right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My understanding of rights, shows me to respect the rights of others as much as my own.

I read somewhere a person’s “signature” they used on a message board. It went something like this: “The biggest threat to the outdoor sportsman is the outdoor sportsman”. It was quite ironic, as I recall, that the person using this signature seemed bent on being the dictator of which rights shall be bestowed on his fellow sportsmen, while chastising anyone who dared question his authority.

As the title of this piece reads, liberty is not this man’s or any other man’s to give or to take. To assume such authority it must be assumed that this person consider himself either above the power of the Creator or that they’ve “progressed” to a point that God is no longer or never was any part of their life. Quite unfortunate for them and the rest of us, I’d say.

It is a most arduous burden for some to tolerate the “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” of others and perhaps that task remains insurmountable without individual direction from God. Instead of illustrating the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights in our behavior, we too often choose to dictate which liberties can be exercised.

Let me explain. Some fishermen believe that employing the use of “catch and release” in their favorite pastime, is a good way to preserve and conserve the species for the present into the future. I take no issue with that. If we “illustrate the exact meaning of self-evident, Creator-endowed Rights”, this fisherman who believes in his notion that such a practice is best, should exercise his rights and promote his epiphany in every positive way he can and support it with as much scientific facts as there are available.

When we “choose to dictate which liberties”, it takes on a very different tone. We can never accomplish what is right through negative behavior. Instead of the positive promotion of catch-and-release fishing, the tyrant rather opts to demonize those who choose to catch, keep and eat the fish they caught, even to the point of fighting for laws to prohibit such activity.

If catch-and-release fishing is the answer to all our conservation concerns, then it will stand firmly on its own merits. Dictating rights, steals from others and tells the rest of us that this person knows nothing of which they speak and are only interested in usurping others’ rights.

But it’s not just fishing. This general negative, dictatorial, rights-snatching behavior carries over into every aspect of our lives.

It is troubling to me that the President of a country, whose Declaration of Independence clearly states that it is self-evident, that our Rights are granted by our Creator, proclaims to the world that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Taking God and the Liberty he endowed us all with, out of our lives, our society and our government, is a dangerous direction we should not travel.

I do not have the right to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t. As a matter of fact no man on this earth has that right, although they have taken it. I may not like what someone with opposing views has to say but it is far from me to try to shut them up.

Exercise you God-given Liberties and revel in them. Taking others away does nothing to protect yours and will eventually end yours.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

By Jim Beers

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Yesterday, I wrote a piece titled Confessions of a Treatyphobe. In it I discussed the abuse of the Treaty Power in our Constitution and in so doing I mentioned how I would be glad to debate why the Migratory Bird Treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia were in need of modification and how they might be changed. The result is that, thus far, I have been removed from at least four Christmas card lists and have made formerly sound communications with two other readers, tenuous at best in the future.

The following is a hastily drawn explanation of why and how US federal authority over migratory birds is in need of change. I say “hastily” because I was on an Oregon radio show last night and I just completed a Missouri radio show this morning and I feel I must respond to any questions in a timely manner or be thought unable to defend what I write.

The US federal authority over named species of migratory birds is based entirely on the Treaties named above. This federal authority and jurisdiction has many flaws at this time. This is not to say that it does not still fulfill many of the original purposes for the original Treaty (i.e. managing and fairly dividing the annual harvest of game birds by hunters between states and the subsistence food source harvest by Native people). It has likewise accounted for the preservation and management of wetlands necessary for water birds of all stripes and for wide-ranging habitat and survival improvements for songbirds and other birds highly valued by birdwatchers and those living near significant insect concentrations.

But consider the following:

- Airplane/migratory bird strikes are far more extensive and frequent than generally known. This includes but is not limited to geese, gulls, blackbirds, starlings, sparrows, etc.

- Cormorants are seriously decimating sport fish, fish hatcheries, fish farms, and private property.

- “Resident” Canada geese (introduced and spread by federal programs just like wolves) spreading disease on golf courses, schoolyards, and parks while causing auto accidents, and chasing lunch-breaking employees and walkers near ponds.

- Hawk and owl predation creating unpublicized negative impacts on songbirds and other birds and animals.

- The federal migratory bird authority justified and was the Congressionally-stated purpose (production, migration, and wintering needs of waterfowl – i.e. geese and ducks that are hunted) for the majority, number and acres of National Wildlife Refuges acquired in the lower 48 states (Alaska’s Native Claims Settlement Act refuges distorts these numbers if included). It was likewise the basic authorization for required federal Duck Stamps that financed much of these acquisitions. Yet today, Refuge water management is slowly being changed to dry land “Native Ecosystems”, waterfowl nesting habitat is being changed into “Invasive Species” (often simply post-1492 AD game birds and sport fish) eradication projects less friendly to waterfowl needs. In other words, federal lands purchased with hunter “fees” and authorized by Congress for Waterfowl are being converted into lands less hospitable to and supportive of waterfowl and hunters.

Let us further consider what could be done about these issues remembering this is being “hastily” done and there are other issues that could appear on the list above and below:

- Authority over airplane/bird safety should be given to Airport authorities.

- Authority and jurisdiction over “resident” Canada geese in the US between 15 March and 1 September should be given to State governments.

- Cormorants, hawks, and owls should be placed under State government jurisdiction and authority.

NOTE: For all of those readers now writhing in pain on the floor moaning about this would be a prelude to Armageddon – The Endangered Species Act was designed and is being implemented as a preventive to stop all those local yokels electing all those narrow state politicians from making all those critters extinct. Local managers, responsive voters, would do far better at protecting air travelers, fish farmers, urban health (human by the way), hunters, fishermen, sport fish and desirable wildlife, songbirds and other associated values of value to those living in those areas.

- Management conversion of federally-owned wetlands and associated uplands to any habitat less supportive of waterfowl management outputs should be replaced with NEW and equally waterfowl-supportive habitat of equal waterfowl productivity and benefits.

NOTE: If the federal government is to fulfill this primary and original justification for Treaties that grant the federal government power and authority that formerly resided in state governments, they should do no less with ALL lands they control.

The foregoing is a thumbnail sketch of what could be done, but that is not why I am taking the time to write this. I am writing this because it might well be a “teachable moment” regarding Treaties.

Let’s pretend I am lauded and cheered about the foregoing proposals and “everyone” wants to implement them: how might this be done?

1. We could just write agreements with these entities to do these things. Sure, just like “delisting” wolves. The state or airport must do A, B, and C or the feds intervene: PLUS, the lawsuits about how this is illegal and not based on “science” and a plot by those wanting to kill everything, etc., etc. would be thicker than a spring blizzard. Just like “state management of wolves”, state authorities under such agreements are little more than paid “Charlie McCarthies” for federal bureaucrats in service of anti-management and use organizations.
2. We could just write “new” federal regulations doing the above. Such regulations would be found to be not possible (illegal) under The Migratory Bird Treaty Act that implements the Treaties with Canada et al. A lawsuit now or in the future would make any such regulations illegal in short order.
3. Why not change (amend) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act? Even if we had a President Sarah Palin, a Senate under Jim Inhofe, and a Secretary of the Interior Michelle Bachmann and could do this, it would likewise be found to conflict with the (interlocking on purpose) Treaties and therefore illegal. Furthermore, what my “dream team” could accomplish, the next President Barbara Boxer, Senate Leader Barney Frank, and Secretary of the Interior Charles “Charlie” Rangel could simply undo. This leaves us with the Treaties…
4. The Treaties need to be “reopened” and Amendment proposed but how is this possible? Set aside for now how environmental/animal rights organizations fight this tooth, lawyer, and nail as a threat to their federal control of an exclusively powerful federal government and as a precedent for further dispersal of the power they worked so hard to consolidate across the board. While the Canadian Treaty doesn’t mention cormorants (that’s a whole other story) and there is no provision in any of the Treaties to give authority to something like an airport authority or even a state, why would any of the 4 nations REMOVE species? Why would any of the 4 Treaty nations encumber their government-owned lands with such a requirement about maintaining waterfowl capacities? Where is the “carrot”? Thus do we hear so often that such and such is “required” by the Treaty or that it is “prohibited” by the Treaty, and then in a generally laughing tone “man you’d have to change ‘the’ or ‘all’ those Treaties, are you ‘nuts’?”

Thus is big government solidified and imposition of ephemeral national values and agendas solidified. Thus are local controls and community cultural identities once lost, seldom regained. Thus are incremental steps toward tyranny and helplessness dressed in good intentions as they help attain bad agendas and create precedents. Thus is my Christmas card response list reduced incrementally.

Jim Beers

19 March 2010

Photo from fOTOGLIF

By Jim Beers

“My name is Jim Beers and I am a treatyphobe.”

I grew up in the period of wildlife abundance in the 1940’s and 50’s. From the first time I hunted with my Dad, the dream of spending my life managing and preserving the use and cultural heritage provided by US fish and wildlife was always in my mind.

When I studied wildlife management in college and when I worked for the Utah Fish and Game and then the US Fish and Wildlife Service after a stint in the Navy; fish and wildlife management and use, like American freedoms and the American way of life were still intact. Today, fish and wildlife management and use, like American government, American freedoms, American culture and traditions, and American society are in tatters and on the verge of disappearance.

I lay much of the blame for this decline on the sordid manipulation of the Treaty powers contained in the US Constitution by persons with hidden agendas. That is not to say that this power is wrongly described therein, it is to say that this power as it has evolved in the past century has eroded the strong foundation of Constitutional government and fish and wildlife use and management as we knew it.

I am “taking pen to paper” here because yesterday I wrote about the potential for the current Administration (Obama et al) and the current US Senate (Reid et al) to cynically craft and line up a few nations to sign a UN Treaty “On Small Arms and Ammunition” that, when signed by the President (of the US) and ratified by 2/3 of the Senators “present” whenever old Harry (Reid) deigns to ask for a vote, automatically becomes “the Law of the land” per the Constitution. I further speculated that it would mean the inevitable demise of our 2nd Amendment rights.

A lawyer that I respect essentially responded that such a scenario was unlikely because such a treaty would not and could not change the Constitution and therefore would be challenged and found to be unable to change our rights. I was crestfallen but I accept that lawyerly advice.

Therefore I have joined Treatyphobics Anonymous and as my first step in overcoming my phobia about Treaties will try to explain my formerly inexplicable fear of Treaties so that I might return to societal confidence in the Treaty-making authority of federal leaders.

When I went to work for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the late 1960’s I unknowingly entered into an era of societal turbulence and change that was not only reflected in fish and wildlife programs but indeed hijacked those programs and the powers they contained. I can only say this now, because while I was immersed in it until fired in 1999, it was truly like the old saw of not being able “to see the forest for the trees”. Allow me to explain.

US fish and wildlife were unmanaged and freely used until the late 1800’s. In 1896, new state laws about wildlife were upheld by the Supreme Court in GEER v. Connecticut wherein it was held that states “owned” all the fish and wildlife within their borders. This was the cornerstone that began the increased management and sustainable use of fish and wildlife by accountable (to state resident voters) State, not federal, politicians and managers.

In 1917, the federal government ratified a TREATY with Canada to protect about 200 species of birds (nearly all migratory game birds and songbirds) that Migrated between these two nations. The authority for the federal government to subsequently claim ALL authority over all of these named birds was upheld by the Supreme Court in Holland v. Missouri in 1920. Ray Holland was one of my (as a young duck hunter) early heroes and to this day I have a photograph of him standing, cigar in hand, on the Mall in DC in the early 1920’s. Federal authority for years protected and increased those migratory birds for uses from hunting and bird watching to protection of agricultural crops and wetlands. Today I would argue that they no longer do that, if anyone would care to debate the point.

Let’s fast forward to my 32 years with the USFWS. As societal turbulence (anti-war, drugs, “free”-love, etc.) shook the land, federal fish and wildlife management and use was subverted and perverted into something 180 degrees out of synch with American traditions and cultures. Treaty manipulation became a hidden factor in this perversion.

Consider two federal laws that have changed our world dramatically, The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

1. An Endangered Species Act passed Congress in 1969 but it was found to have “no teeth’. So a UN Convention was concocted and ratified on “International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora” (“Small Arms Treaty” anyone?) in 1973. That same year (wow, did they do that quickly) the federal government enacted the Endangered Species Act we all came to know and (only a few of us) love.

2. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was introduced in 1976 by an Arkansas Senator (funny how those guys and gals keep popping up in these scenarios about subverting US society) who joked that “the best thing about this law (he was fishing for “environmental” votes at the time) was that there wasn’t one of them Marine Mammals within 500 miles of Arkansas”. It followed:

1931/49 – Whaling Convention Act and amendments.

1957 – Fur Seal (Alaska) Act

1958 – Convention on “Living Resources of the High Seas”.

1970 – 8 Species of Whales declared “Endangered”.

1972 – A Treaty on Seals.

1973 – A Treaty on Polar Bears. (As I write this, the paper reports that the US introduced a ban on the international trade by Canadian natives of polar bear skins, teeth, and claws from their own robust and sustainably-managed and hunted polar bear populations. Fortunately, this political trashing of the rural and native people of our strongest ally and neighbor was defeated by a surprisingly erudite UN vote.)

Now remember that I am ignoring a whole bunch of simultaneously nefarious stuff involving other fish and wildlife things during these years. For instance:

- Manipulating a Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico and new Treaties with Japan and Russia to quietly add new “federally protected” birds that had been specifically excluded like cormorants (that soon overran hatcheries and fish farms) and pelicans (that soon became “Endangered” and now overrun docks) and hawks and owls that, like protected wolves and grizzly bears, soon grew in numbers and destruction impacts on other birds and desired wildlife.

- Closing public lands to access and management (Wilderness Act of 1964).

- Wild Horse and Burro Act (1971) giving federal protection to such destructive and overpopulated animals.

- Gradual reorientation of federal lands into being lands OUTSIDE state and local authority and lands oriented to “Native Ecosystems” instead of the purposes for which they were purchased.

- Closure of public lands to uses (and management tools) like logging and grazing.

- Proliferating designations by Executive Orders and bureaucratic regulations to close public land from energy access and development to closing more access with Roadless Areas, the destruction of trails, nuisance regulations, draconian law enforcement, and entry fees.

Now remember, what I am about to say comes from someone that is not a lawyer. If I had a buck for every time I heard, in my federal career, that “we” had authority over private property and state governments because “we” (us federal guys, not you out there or any of those state “cowboy legislatures” or redneck farmers) had treaties and the laws implementing them on “our” side, well I would be fishing off New Zealand or bird shooting in Argentina (it is early fall there) right now. Government Solicitors and those bureaucrats that were promoted to ever-higher responsibilities (“responsive to management skills and abilities” types) were constantly maneuvering with New Age Lawyers and their environmental/animal rights clients and supporters to “interpret” the laws and treaties in supportive (of government expansion) ways. They also worked hard to identify and “suggest” new laws and regulations to “save” more and to “plug loopholes” that frustrated federal power growth. Writing suggested Treaty language and getting court findings to serve as precedents (the “right” court at the “right” time) and then writing regulations that served the original but mostly unnoticed federal/ “New Age” supporters agendas was what federal employees and their advisors were paid and rewarded to do in those days.

Those 2 federal laws (ESA & MMPA) created a federal and public mindset, and a whole trail and flow of increasingly un-American laws and regulations. This soon did two things:

1. Established the now-acceptable practice that the federal government could “Take” private property use and value from private owners for whatever reason it contrives, like “Critical Habitat”, WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. This broke the back as far as federal advocates were concerned of that old, out-dated concept about “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” that those old rich guys (Our Founding Fathers) wrote somewhere (the US Constitution, 5th Amendment). Who wouldn’t “take” all they could if there was no cost? Who could afford to “take” all the federal government has “taken” in the past 40 years if they had to pay for it?

2. Established the current belief that states no longer “owned” any fish or wildlife except what the feds have left alone thus far.

Once we accepted these two principles and their future place in our laws, our fate was and is sealed.

When federal bureaucrats and politicians saw that Treaties could give them absolute power over everything from private property to the authority and jurisdiction of states – THEIR FUTURE GROWTH AND MARCH TO ABSOLUTE POWER WAS ASSURED. No court would ever again uphold a citizen defending private property (be it dog, farm, chicken, or home.) No state would ever again be able to stop federal orders that closed public lands in a state or denied gun rights on federal lands in the state or stopped logging or farming or grazing on public and private lands within a state. The rest was academic:

- Federal lands, budgets, regulations, and power have grown dramatically over the past 40 years.

- State rights have all but disappeared.

- State employees have become mere extensions of federal policies, receivers of federal welfare (excuse me grants and assistance) and enemies of state residents.

- Federally protected overpopulations of Seals choke the mouth of the Pacific NW Rivers eating enormous amounts of salmon (thereby sustaining their overpopulation) while the same federal government protecting them tears down dams, shuts down irrigation districts, reduces human water supplies and power generation, and closes vast ocean areas to fishermen; all to “save salmon”.

- Federally protected and federally dispersed wolves spread disease, danger, and carnage in federally-designated states on both public and private property and thereby destroy rural culture, rural economies, and rural communities where federal lands and the destruction of animal (wild and domestic) husbandry and use is being federally driven to make way for ever-growing federal land enclaves.

- Marine Mammals that never leave state waters and were heretofore under state authority like manatee and sea otters are, like growing lists of other wild resident and therefore formerly state-controlled animals like sage grouse, pupfish, suckers, wolves, etc. placed under absolute and never-ending federal jurisdiction (every State move must be “approved by federal authorities” once such jurisdiction is proclaimed). This set the groundwork for the current cry for “federal laws” to “restore native ecosystems” and “eliminate invasive species” (what else is there given the nonsensical definitions of these “rubbery” concepts?)

A century of American Progressive challenges to the “ownership of the commons”, an ancient concept about whether “The King” or “The People” (now where have I heard that last term before?) owned “public” land and the fish and wildlife inhabiting it has become intertwined, like mating snakes with a century of “progressive” beliefs and actions about the “smart” few governing the “ignorant” (scientifically-challenged?) many.

Those 2 results of Treaties (ESA & MMPA) being (rightly or wrongly assumed by federal bureaucrats and their political bosses and an “evolving Supreme Court”) justification for laws demolishing the Constitution and leaving only the power of a majority vote (i.e. no “Rights” just power) have much to do with the state of America today.

As an old bureaucrat I may be way off base about how Treaties are supposed to work but I know what I saw and it is like a B-25 tail gunner walking through Dresden in1946: it ain’t pretty and you wonder how it all happened and how it ever went this far.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I will come to any more of these meetings. All this baring your soul stuff is too stressful on an old-timer.

Jim Beers

The model for most of these bills came from Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, a bill that basically states that any gun or gun accessory manufactured in Montana that is purchased and remains in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government of the United States. Montana is seeking “Declaratory Judgment” before suggesting that anyone proceed with the manufacturing of guns and accessories.

In reality what these Firearms Freedom Acts are doing is “nullifying” the authority of the Federal Government to regulate guns within the borders of each state when none of the guns or related products ever leave the state. The Federal Government has been very successful in the past in regulating all guns through the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Montana’s bone of contention is that the Commerce Clause has regulated interstate commerce and has no authority over intrastate commerce.

One might ask if this is a full blown act of nullification. It’s not that Montana and other states are saying that any or a specific federal law is being declared unconstitutional in it’s entirety. In this case any law that the Federal Government thinks gives them authority to regulate intrastate gun manufacturing, is being challenged.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and one of the sponsors of the MFFA, says this is a states’ rights issue.

This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.

Although nullification isn’t a term that is widely used these days, there are other examples of modern day nullification or challenges to certain federal laws. Two that come to mind are the REAL ID Act and marijuana laws. Some states have passed legislation challenging the constitutionality of forcing citizens to have to carry an identification card they believe infringes on their right to privacy and the Constitution. And, some states have passed their own laws authorizing marijuana for medical use where the Federal Government bans all uses and possession of the drug.

We may also be staring down the barrel of nullification depending on what happens with President Obama’s proposed National Health Care plan. If it is mandated that every American citizen have health insurance, many have asked where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have that kind of authority.

Probably the most recent case that expanded the power of the Federal Government to regulate commerce, came in 1942 in the Wickard v. Filburn case. This came at a time when President Roosevelt demanded the power to institute his programs he thought where going to get us on the road to recovery after the Depression. Scary isn’t it.

One of the more notable accounts of nullification was in 1832 in South Carolina. South Carolina’s “Ordinance of Nullification” declared the Tariff of 1828 and Tariff of 1832 unconstitutional. This put President Andrew Jackson in quite the predicament. While Jackson quietly assembled his army, ready to invade South Carolina, negotiations continued. Jackson’s fear was that if South Carolina were to be allowed nullification, many of the southern states would follow suit. Also many of the New England states apposed the tariffs. Jackson feared that secession would follow the nullification and this would lead to the demise of the Union. He also feared that an invasion of South Carolina could just as easily lead to civil war.

Other than President Jackson’s fear of the trouble in South Carolina, his bigger deterrent was coming from the fact that several other states, although never officially declaring nullification, were poised to do so.

Perhaps it is telling that so many states are seeking some form of nullification, some dealing with REAL ID, others medical marijuana and 25 states or more, opting to use gun rights as their tools to seek out a return of more state sovereignty, as is granted us in the Tenth Amendment. What does it tell us that so many states chose gun rights as their tool? And what does it tell us about the people’s attitudes toward the expansion of government.

Where will this go? First we should wait to see what the Court rules in the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case and watch to see how many other states pass and get signed their “nullification” bills. Soon, then, we can declare, “Balls in your court!

Tom Remington

As much as I admired Ronald Reagan and consider him to be one of our finest presidents, I would not advocate having his face put on any paper money denomination. If we feel it necessary to change up the faces, then I might suggest we head in the opposite direction from putting more recent dignitaries on bills to those of past history.

Being that history really isn’t taught any longer in our schools, this might be an opportunity to place some of our other founding fathers – Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc.. We do have pictures of men who were not presidents – Hamilton ($10.00) and Franklin ($100.00).

Or maybe we could remove all pictures and begin a series of placing the Bill of Rights beginning with the First Amendment.