Political News - Conservative Views -Join the Discussions
Society and the State: Is the 10th Amendment Still Relevant?
This week, I was interviewed by Connor Boyack on his podcast, Society and the State.
We discussed some general strategy, the annual State of the Nullification Movement Report, and specific state-by-state issues, including raw milk, asset forfeiture, right to try, and marijuana legalization.
Connor is a former volunteer with the TAC and the president of Libertas Institute in Utah. He’s also the author of a series of fantastic books on liberty for kids, The Tuttle Twins – and an all-around great person. I really enjoyed the opportunity to be on his show.
Here’s an overview of the show from Society and the State:
When the U.S. Constitution was written, the balance of power between the states and the federal government they called into existence was very different. Under federalism, the states and the people were superior to the federal government in all but a very few, clearly enumerated areas. The framers drove this point home in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Over time, however, this relationship has been turned on its head. Michael Boldin from the 10th Amendment Center joins us to discuss why this happened and whether the 10th Amendment remains relevant in our day.
The 10th Amendment is truly relevant today as it was when the bill of rights were ratified.
This amendment is ignored or used when one party or another finds their goals fits the choice they make.
Congress ignores at will again by choice. Granted some elected will not be concerned one way or the other unless the ignore or invoke becomes an issued talking point.
I am a 10th'er. Wear often my #Nullify t-shirt. Do I make a difference doing that? Not really. I do fire off a lot of letters. Do they make a difference? Maybe.
I work to elect conservatives, constitutional conservatives. Does this make a difference? Better chance that it does.
I attend events where I can get access to a candidate or rep and talk directly to them. Does this make a difference? I think this approach has merit.
“Anyone who quotes the 10th Amendment, but not the 14th Amendment that supplanted it cannot be taken seriously.”