Direct Link to Latest News


States Can Tell Feds to Shove It

January 25, 2010

mack-at-capitol-with-sign-half.jpgBy Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.)

By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national health care down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth
of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared to the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage.

The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it!  That's right, the individual States can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and "big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Health care as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say "No!"

For you skeptics...let's look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government.

Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for
all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.

The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the "creator."

 Let's be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central
government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of "balanced power." Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment)
Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or  assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the
Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.
In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all
matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other."

So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local
or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The point to remember here is; where do we define
the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People.

So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsibility and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other..."  What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land,
has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances."

The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere. So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC.

The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz)  Which means the States can tell national health care proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, "The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our
constitutional system of dual sovereignty."  It is rather obvious that nationalized health care definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program."

Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.
Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.

Original Title -The States Can Stop Obama 

Contact Sherrif Mack
Speech by Sheriff Mack (Video)

Thanks to Phil for guidance.

First Comment from Paul Andrew Mitchell

Congratulations!  I believe that all Americans need to study that excellent piece.

I do wish you had taken the next step after citing Article I, Section 8:
the Clause at 1:8:17 is a very important key to understanding
why the Republic is devolved into near extinction, of late:
("exclusive" here means no State jurisdiction whatsoever)

And, this key Clause is THE reason why D.C. cannot join the Union
without a Constitutional Amendment expressly permitting it to do so.

If you will take the time to review the articles we have authored and
assembled concerning the failed Fourteenth amendment [sic]
and the ugly legal consequences of its historical aftermath,
it shouldn't be too difficult for men of your intelligence
to see how all of the following have served to empower the Feds and to dis-empower the States and their Citizens (UPPER-CASE "C"):

(1)  federal citizenship is a Federal MUNICIPAL franchise
domiciled in D.C.;

(2)  there was only one class of State Citizens prior to the Civil War,
and thus prior to 1866;

(3)  the 1866 Civil Rights Act originally created federal citizenship,
and it too was Federal MUNICIPAL law:  it could not and did not amend any of the Qualifications Clauses which mention State Citizens ONLY; in point of fact, those Clauses have never been amended;

(4)  similarly, the "Citizens" mentioned in the Arising Under Clause and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause were likewise State Citizens ONLY (there was only one class of State Citizens between 1788 and 1866);

(5)  without belaboring any of the other important historical details,
it is now clear that the population of federal citizens who inhabit
the 50 States are an absolute legislative democracy that is domiciled in D.C.;

(6)  federal citizens owe their allegiance to a jurisdiction which is
not protected by the Guarantee Clause;  strictly construed
as it should be, that Guarantee Clause only guarantees
a Republic Form of Government to the 50 States,
NOT to the "United States" (federal government) read "D.C.";

(7)  the consequences of this fraudulent scheme have been numerous, far-reaching and long-lasting, e.g.:

(a)  presently only federal citizens can vote and serve on juries,
whether grand juries or trial juries, whether criminal or civil juries;

(b)  only State Citizens can serve in the House, Senate or White House (remember here:  the Qualifications Clauses have never been amended: as such, they retain today the meaning they had when they were first ratified on June 21, 1788 -- my birthday, by the way :)

(c)  therefore, those who are qualified to be federal lawmakers
cannot vote or serve on any juries -- State or federal, civil or criminal, grand or petit juries!

(d)  those who are eligible to vote and serve on juries
are not qualified to be federal lawmakers;

(8)  this obviously twisted situation has already been well documented in litigation, e.g. see these documents, for starters:  (and all links at the end)  (14th NEVER RATIFIED:  27 < 28!!!)


Now you know why the Feds persist in harping on "democracy in America": in doing so, they are using false propaganda to perpetuate a majority of federal citizens who presently populate the 50 States, while doing everything within their power to ignore the State Citizens who also inhabit those same 50 States.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "States Can Tell Feds to Shove It"

John said (January 27, 2010):

'm sure the good Sheriff believes what he says, and I'm sure his intentions are pure, but it's the kind of thing you would expect to hear from a "Law & Order" type of guy. The fact is, the current system has been corrupted for so long that it is now beyond salvage. The only way for people to become truly free again is to
shed this evil, corrupt political system that breeds nothing but misery, lies and debt.

Your recent article "All Laws Exist in a Fiction" was just a tiny example of the information available on how we've been screwed over since birth. The day that any State tells the Feds to "shove it" and goes it alone will be a cold day in Hell. And any State politicians who appear to be leaning towards that idea could find themselves set up in some negative way so as
to cause them to leave politics... or at worst they might be escorted out to the woods to "commit suicide".

The answer is not the States telling the Fed's to go shove it. The answer is for each individual, non-brainwashed human to tell both those corrupt criminal entities to go shove it... one person at a time! A thinking, productive human being does not need either of them.

Rob said (January 26, 2010):

I can't agree with you more, that the States CAN tell the Feds to shove it; the only problem is that state office is a stepping stone to Federal office.

People who want to move up (to the big time) will unfortunately not make waves in the area they want to move up to.

And so the problem sustains itself, greed and the lust for power rules the day.

Are there any out there that are so selfless in their desire to serve that would dare make waves in the larger pond of the Federal Govt.?? if there are such people out there..."Please stand up we need candidates like you inn the coming elections".

Ben said (January 26, 2010):

Your article while interesting was lacking in one respect... How deep does the treason go??? Has the treason infiltrated even to the state level? Have the states "governors" become of the tribe that wishes to enslave the free? Have they made an oath to enrich themselves with luxuries?
Have they stepped up to the bar and drank from the cup of the wine of the wrath of "her" whoring?

You shall know them by their fruits.

"Obama Establishes Council of Governors"

How deep does the treason go?

Lonni said (January 26, 2010):

Could I show you what I think about this states' rights matter? I'm an artist and I usually paint portraits and work for sale in galleries. Last year, however, I decided to try to use a willing populace as billboards for my opinions. I have designed several hundred Tshirts about the politics of Liberty, and it so happens that my shirt about the 10th Amendment and states' rights is one of my best sellers: I wish I could send you one, but times are hard, and I'm afraid that a link is the best I can do!

Jason said (January 26, 2010):

Yes, the States could theoretically tell the Fed to indeed shove it; however, the country itself has gone through many changes throughout the last half century not to mention this decade. For one, due to the traitorous legislation such as the Patriot Act and its broad terminology, the States and the people rarely know their rights anymore. Due to the latest “security” measures and new fight against “terrorism” many liberties and constitutional safety catches have been overridden or even nullified in the name of security.

Second, the States have been pacified for many years now by the Federal government and therefore have become heavily dependent. Many states such as California, the third largest economy in the world, has nearly gone bankrupt and defaulted on its debt. Then, of course, the Federal government rides in and saves the day with its unsecured printed money. Many other States have been treated the same; especially with many states with heavy job losses and needing additional funds to just extend their unemployment benefits. As long as the States support the Fed and do as they’re told, they’ll get all the funding they need. It makes quite a bit of sense when you think about it. What state has been the most draconian and constitutionally immoral? Good ol’ California, who, I said before, has nearly gone bankrupt and accepted many gratuitous bailouts from the Fed.

In conclusion, yes the States could tell the Fed to shove it, but at what price? A price that very few States would actually pay to protect its people.

PB said (January 26, 2010):

I respect sheriff Mack and that is a factually correct article that you posted. The problem with this approach is that state governments are made up of two kinds of people.

1. The professional politician who is mostly of the same power hungry mind-set as those in the Federal Congress ('we know best- big government and more taxes will solve everything).

2. The citizen-legislator who unfortunately was educated in public schools and doesn't know anymore about law, constitution, and founding principles than Joe Sixpack who elected him.

The states suffer the same duality of government that exists at the Federal level ( There is the original Republic state of Indiana and there is THE STATE OF INDIANA (I still don't understand how this came about). This is the reason that 'the People' can't rely on any form of government to solve their slavery problem. We have the power - problem is: no-one knows it !

Years ago there was a slick politician named Huey Long who, if memory serves me right, was campaigning against FDR for the Presidency of our country. Huey came up with a theme song - 'Every Man a King". Even if his motives were suspect, Huey must have understood the tenets of the foundation of our country as stated below:

"... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty ... Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens."

--Supreme Court of the United States
2 US 419 (February 1794)
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chief Justice: Jay, John
Argued: February 5, 1793
Decided: February 18, 1793

If we could educate the Patriots in this country to these truths we would be well on the way to solving the problem of run-amuck governments.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at