THE RE-DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Arizona State Bar protects checks and balances
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
In a recently issued ethics opinion, the Arizona State Bar declared, “a lawyer may ethically counsel or assist a client in legal matters expressly permissible under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act…despite the fact that such conduct potentially may violate applicable federal law.” Whatever one may think of the wisdom of Arizona’s new medical marijuana law, the Bar apparently takes principles of state sovereignty seriously enough to shield lawyers from blanket claims that helping clients violate federal law is unethical.
Of course, the ethics ruling is subject to many caveats, including the proviso that it “is limited to the specific facts discussed herein.” But it would be outrageous if the Bar’s opinion were merely a special favor for the medical marijuana industry. Hopefully, the ruling signals that the Bar will stand by attorneys who, in good faith, advance state law when it clashes with federal law.
In an era when the federal government increasingly exceeds its constitutional authority, it is imperative that bar associations support good faith efforts by attorneys to enforce state laws. Without this protection, bar associations would be giving the federal government carte blanche to dictate laws without any checks or balances arising from the states.
With the federal government claiming the power to force everyone to buy health insurance, and administrative agencies like the National Labor Relations Board going after states that seek to protect the right to vote by secret ballot in union elections, the freedom for attorneys to advance state laws is essential.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Health Care Freedom Act Q&A
Goldwater Institute: National Labor Relations Board v. State of Arizona (Save Our Secret Ballot case)
State Bar of Arizona: Ethics Opinion
Defending the right to a secret ballot and Arizona’s constitution
by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
Last year, voters in Arizona approved Proposition 113, a state constitutional amendment drafted by the Goldwater Institute to protect every worker’s right to a secret-ballot vote if they are asked to join a union. Voters in South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah also added this protection to their state constitutions last year, and more states are signing up this year.
But the National Labor Relations Board wants to take that protection away, and it has filed a federal lawsuit to strike down Prop. 113. The Goldwater Institute had pledged to defend this law and the right to vote by secret ballot if it was challenged, and I am happy to report that we are fulfilling that promise. The Institute has gone to federal court on behalf of dozens of individuals – construction workers, nurses, and teachers – to stop the NLRB and keep this important protection in place for workers in Arizona and any state that passes this law.
The right to a secret ballot is one of the most sacred principles of American democracy. But that right is under attack by an out-of-control federal agency that would expose workers to coercion or intimidation when they are trying to decide if they should join a union.
The NLRB under President Barack Obama is quickly becoming a rogue agency. It has taken action to prevent Boeing from opening a new facility in South Carolina, claiming the airplane manufacturer is retaliating against unions. If a company can’t choose where to locate a facility, it has lost its economic freedom. And if workers can’t voluntarily choose whether to form a union, they have lost their freedom of association.
The Goldwater Institute will continue to stand up for the rights of all workers threatened by the actions of the NLRB.
Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: National Labor Relations Board v. State of Arizona
Goldwater Institute: Feds threaten to sue over card check
Arizona Daily Star: Arizona sued over amendment on secret ballot for unionization
Goldwater Institute Helps States Declare Independence from Big Government
Goldwater Institute
News Release
PHOENIX – From light bulbs to cheeseburgers, the federal government is more involved in the details of American life than ever before – and far more than the country’s Founders ever envisioned.
“The Constitution was designed to guard our freedom by dividing power not only between the three branches of the federal government – Congress, the president, and the courts – but also between the federal government and states,” said Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s director of constitutional studies. “But the federal government has been taking control of decisions that once belonged exclusively to the states or to the people in their private lives.”
The Goldwater Institute has developed 10 innovative ideas for reinstating the constitutional roles of state and federal governments in a new, comprehensive guidebook, “Federalism-Do-It-Yourself: 10 Ways for States to Check and Balance Washington.”
In the study, Mr. Dranias highlights dozens of policies enacted by the federal government that intrude on state laws. The study also points out that, with 20 percent of the money spent by state and local governments coming from the federal government, state and local budget priorities are effectively determined in Washington, D.C.
Examples of federal overreach into state affairs abound. Officials in Pima County, Ariz., secured $16 million in federal stimulus money by proposing to adopt “obesity zoning” that would limit the construction of new fast-food restaurants. Lured by the promise of federal grants, Wisconsin towns and counties want to take away the property rights of rural families by blocking their land from being used for anything other than farming.
But more than local control is at stake, Mr. Dranias said. Individual liberty is also under siege when Congress can mandate that nearly every adult must buy a government-approved health insurance policy by 2014.
“States have lost their status as equal partners in governing, which has opened the door to a nearly unchecked national government that our Founders knew would be dangerous to a free society,” Mr. Dranias said. “The federal government is poised to dictate our most important choices in life, including what we choose to eat, how we use our property, and whether we get health care, unless the states begin using the legal and constitutional tools available to them.”
This report proposes 10 tools that state legislatures, county governments, and city councils can adopt to rebuff further federal intrusion, including:
• Adopt state laws to preserve and expand liberty and defend those laws in court against federal encroachment. Ten states are protecting health care freedom for their residents by enacting the Health Care Freedom Act and defending it in court.
• Forbid state and local officials from assisting the federal government in carrying out mandates when doing so threatens individual liberty. Attempts by the Department of Homeland Security to implement the REAL ID Act were thwarted because 14 states adopted laws that ordered their motor vehicle departments or similar agencies not to cooperate.
• Invoke existing coordination rights under many federal laws that require federal agencies to coordinate with state and local governments when imposing new mandates and regulations that conflict with state laws and local ordinances. Uintah County in Utah blocked the federal government from releasing diseased wild horses into public ranch lands by exercising its right to demand coordination between federal and local regulations.
• Call one or more Amendments Conventions to draft amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would limit the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government. North Dakota already has taken this step with a proposal to limit federal debt, and 29 other states are considering this strategy as well.
Click here for a one-page explanation of the 10 tools to bring rebalance power between states and the federal government. The Goldwater Institute also has prepared model legislation that uses these tools to limit federal debt, protect health care freedom, and preserve private property rights. This model legislation can be viewed here.
About the author: Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog that develops innovative, principled solutions to issues facing the states and whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.
US Supreme Court rules for AZ
A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Thursday, May 26, 2011
US Supreme Court rules for AZ
States can yank licenses for companies that hire illegal aliens
By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
8:34 AM PDT, May 26, 2011
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave Arizona and other states more authority to take action against illegal immigrants and the companies that hire them, ruling that employers who knowingly hire illegal workers can lose their license to do business.
The 5-3 decision upholds the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 and its so-called business death penalty for employers who are caught repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The state law also requires employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new workers, a provision that was also upheld Thursday.
The court’s decision did not deal with the more controversial Arizona law passed last year that gave police more authority to stop and question those who are suspected of being in the state illegally. But the ruling is likely to encourage the state and its supporters because the court majority said states remained free to take action involving immigrants.
Thursday’s decision is a defeat for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several civil-rights groups and the Obama administration, all of whom opposed the Arizona law and its sanctions on employers. They argued that federal law said states may not impose “civil or criminal sanctions” on employers.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said another portion of the same law made clear that states were free to use their “licensing” laws to punish employers. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. formed the majority in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting.
The Arizona law upheld Thursday was signed into law by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, who now serves as secretary of Homeland Security for President Obama.
In dissent were Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. They said federal law prohibited states from imposing their own immigration-related rules on employers. Justice Elena Kagan sat out the case.
Soon after the Arizona employment law went into effect, lawyers for the chamber and civil-rights group sued, contending it was preempted or trumped by federal immigration laws. But a federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Arizona measure. The Supreme Court affirmed those decisions Thursday.
Roberts noted that eight other states had passed similar laws. They are Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
The other Arizona law involving police enforcement has been challenged – successfully, so far – by the Obama administration and civil-rights groups. They say enforcement of laws against illegal immigration is exclusively in the hands of federal authorities. A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Court of Appeals have put that Arizona law on hold. Gov. Jan Brewer said she planned to appeal the issue to the Supreme Court.
Clint Bolick on Freedom Watch
Goldwater Institute litigation director Clint Bolick joined Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business Network’s Freedom Watch to discuss his new book Death Grip, about the need for more economic liberty.
Do you want Congress to hold the line on the debt ceiling?
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
On Monday, the federal debt reached its statutory limit—more than $14 trillion dollars. The American people know carrying debt larger than our entire economy is unsustainable. A January Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that 71 percent of Americans opposed raising the nation’s debt limit. But the effort to hold the line has been trusted to the wrong people. Keeping the debate in Washington, D.C. is like having an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting at the local bar during happy hour. To stop the federal debt binge, the debate needs take place outside of Washington. Only the National Debt Relief Amendment (NDRA) offers that possibility.
The NDRA is a simple yet powerful 18-word amendment. It reads: “An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate States.” If it were law, advocates of lifting the debt limit would have to make their case in 50 state legislatures. The federal government would have to prepare accurate budgets and anticipate truly necessary debt increases well in advance. And with more deliberation throughout the country, the NDRA would increase the chances of Congress developing better fiscal policies with a wider consensus.
How do we get this done? Fortunately, Article V of the U.S. Constitution empowers states to apply for a convention to propose the NDRA for ratification. The North Dakota legislature has already passed just such an application. When 34 states pass the application, Congress must either call the convention or, feeling mounting political pressure, propose the NDRA itself. Such pressure cannot come too soon. We have a moral obligation to address the debt crisis. And that means bypassing Washington, D.C. with a real reform like the NDRA.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Article V convention resources
RestoringFreedom.org: National Debt Relief Amendment
NewsMax: Reuters/Ipsos poll on the Debt Limit
We only need a fraction of the Founders’ courage
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
Federal debt listed on the books now tops $14 trillion. But the federal government has made long-term spending commitments that actually exceed $100 trillion. As a result, the states increasingly look like colonies of Washington, D.C. Like the colonists who objected to taxation without representation during the American Revolution, those who have the most to lose from federal irresponsibility—our children, grandchildren and unborn generations to come—have no voice in the current political process. Congress will never limit its own power for their sake. Change led from outside of Washington, D.C., is their best hope for a better future.
A similar situation faced the Founders of the United States in 1776. They risked everything to throw off the chains of a distant and unresponsive regime. They did not know with absolute certainty that their rebellion would result in greater freedom and a more representative government. The Founders risked losing their lives and fortunes, as well as what few English liberties their countrymen still enjoyed.
But the Founders understood the greater risk was the status quo because London had no political reason to respect the rights of mere colonies. The sacred honor and practical judgment of American patriots demanded action, not submission.
Similarly, accepting today’s status quo will lead us down a road that threatens massive federal tax hikes, hyperinflation, and national bankruptcy. Fortunately, the Founders made sure the states can lead the way for change. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, 34 state legislatures have the power to initiate proposals of constitutional amendments that could limit any increase in the federal debt, require a balanced budget every year, and take other steps to prevent a disaster created by excessive federal spending.
On Friday, the Goldwater Institute will host a policy forum from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. to discuss the use of Article V to rein in the federal government. I hope you can join us.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Make your reservation for the policy forum “Using Article V to Rein-In the Federal Government”
Goldwater Institute: Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Practical Guide for Citizens and Policymakers
Goldwater Institute: 10 Facts to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention
Forbes: America Poised for a Hyperinflationary Event?
Arizona Legislature: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016
Arizona Legislature: Committee hearing on SCR1016 (47 minute mark)
Time To Stand Up To The Feds On Voting Rights
by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
One of the most abusive assaults on Arizona sovereignty is one of the least-known: the inclusion of Arizona among a handful of states subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 5 requires covered jurisdictions—mostly deep-South states—to get approval beforehand from the U.S. Justice Department for every legal change that might affect an election. That means every tiny adjustment by any government entity within these states must comply with this costly and cumbersome procedure, including election locations, voter registration forms, property annexations, and the like.
Arizona was roped into the requirement through a 1975 Voting Rights Act amendment that extended protection to people who speak a foreign language. The law outlived its purpose long ago—the Justice Department approves 999 out of every 1,000 pre-clearances—but the federal government continues to put Arizona in an undeserved penalty box.
Governor Jan Brewer has encouraged Arizona local governments to “bail out” of coverage under Section 5. With statewide redistricting looming, the potential costs and burdens for complying with Section 5 will be enormous.
Jurisdictions may opt out of Section 5 if they’ve had no voting rights complaints for 10 years. But it requires asking permission from a federal court in Washington, D.C. The cost of hundreds of local governments doing so would be hefty.
Here’s a better idea: The state should challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 as it applies to Arizona. In a 2009 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court nearly struck down Section 5, opting instead to allow a utility district to bail out.
The case for placing Arizona in the penalty box was flimsy in the first place; today it is nonexistent and a serious affront to federalism. At the same time, striking down Section 5 would leave intact other voting rights protections that apply everywhere in the country.
We have offered to represent Secretary of State Ken Bennett for free in such a challenge, and made the same offer to Jan Brewer when she occupied that post. Neither one has accepted. But the offer still stands.
Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
Learn More:
Office of the Governor: Four Cornerstones of Reform
U.S. Supreme Court: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility Dist. No. 1 v. Holder
East Valley Tribune: Permission required
E-Verify is a Tool to Stop Illegals, Right? FALSE
Wait, isn’t e-Verify central to stopping illegals?
Well, no, stopping them at the border STOPS illegals.
Then won’t e-Verify stop illegals by not letting them get jobs?
That’s the claim, except for a couple of important points:
1) e-Verify, or in other words, “Automated Employment Eligibility Verification”, was actually the brainchild of the Council on Foreign Relations, otherwise known as the OPEN BORDERS GLOBALIST LOBBY! (Click here to read for yourself.)
How can that be you ask? Well, it’s central to their cross-border CANAMEXUS “labor mobility” plan.
They know that once everyone is in the work database (really the US Department of Homeland Security national id database for which e-Verify is just a user front end), that as soon as “open borders” passes, they simply flip the switch from Mexican Citizen eligible = N to Mexican Citizen eligible = Y, and VOILA, the 21 million illegals go from e-Verify clearance NO to YES …. OVERNIGHT!!!!
2) The only way e-Verify works in the first place is if they have the records BEFOREHAND of everyone who is “supposed to be here”. Well, how does the federal government get that information? Hmmm…..
(See I Dont Care Who you Are The Government Does)
The STATES give it to them! The states turn over their drivers license and birth certificate databases to the US Department of Homeland Security so the feds can construct a massive national id database on all US citizens.
Yes, but didn’t Arizona defeat REAL ID? Sure, but REAL ID is only 1 of 100 or more national id programs. In Arizona, one of the only parts of SB1070 left standing after the federal judge ruling was the section that GUESS WHAT!!!!! turned over all state citizens’ private license data (for any license), including all UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS over to GUESS WHOM??? the US Department of Homeland Security to put in their national id database! (Betcha Russell Pearce didn’t tell you about that little detail!)
Anyway, is it any surpise the feds are doing this? They’ve been at it for over a decade. Too bad the teapartiers weren’t paying attention as “conservatives” they were supporting sold out their privacy, sovereignity, and birthright to the feds for some silver pieces (attention in the media).
3) Now we have this… Of course, it was an inevitability. CITIZENS’ BIOMETRICS NEEDED for E-VERIFY to WORK
To make e-Verify “really work”, we’re going to have to pony up the most private of private data, our personal bio-metrics to the feds to put in their national id database, including our HANDS (finger prints) and our FORHEADS (facial recognition technology).
See Security Industry Assoiation Recommends Biometric Authentication for Federal E-Verify Programme
Are our “conservatives” like Pearce and Adams going to tell us that us law abiding citizens have to give up MORE to the feds to “stop illegals”?
(By the way have you noticed how those you thought were “conservatives” have stopped calls to secure the ACTUAL BORDER? Weird right?)
Summary
Real conservatives, in other words, those who are religious and opposing the mark as well as those who have never wavered from wanting smaller government, less government intrusion, lower spending and lower taxes have been sold out by false conservatives who use the illegal immigration issue as cover to push their agenda of larger government, more police power over law abiding citizens and to implement national id.
The teaparty should take note.
Smaller government is NOT bigger government and bigger government is NOT smaller government.
Further the way you secure the border NOW is PUTTING ARIZONAS NATIONAL GUARD THERE. Not putting all law abiding citizens into the US Department of Homeland Security’s national id database.
Does the Arizona Legislature Really Believe in State Sovereignty?
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
The National Debt Relief Amendment would amend the U.S. Constitution to require any increase in the federal debt be approved by a majority of state legislatures. This would bring planning, transparency, and accountability to any more federal borrowing. The amendment would force the federal government to make the case for adding debt early in the budget process to secure approval by 26 states. Congress could never again impose a multi-trillion dollar mortgage on our children with a last-minute scramble to raise the debt limit.
So why are some of Arizona’s most conservative state senators refusing to allow a full vote on the NDRA? They have been led to believe the false claim that any convention of the states to propose the NDRA under the authority of Article V of the U.S. Constitution would “runaway” and that our Constitution would be rewritten. But during the Constitutional Convention, on September 15, 1787, the Founders specifically rejected efforts to change Article V to allow for an open or “general” convention that could rewrite the entire Constitution. Instead of giving Americans this wide-open ability to rework the Constitution as a whole, the Founders kept the current limited language that only allows us to propose amendments, and requires any amendment proposed by an Article V convention to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Some people have also made the claim that there was a split among the Founders on this issue, and that James Madison feared the Article V process. But the actual historical record shows that the Founders unanimously supported the use of the Article V amendments convention process by the states. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison urged the states to ratify the Constitution because Article V “equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors.” Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 85 that a second constitutional convention was unwise and unnecessary because Article V gave states an adequate ability to propose specific amendments to the Constitution “to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”
Article V gives the states ultimate authority over the federal government by giving them the power to amend the U.S. Constitution—the very document that defines the federal government. That power must not be abandoned by any genuine champion of state sovereignty.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
The Online Library of Liberty: The Records of the Federal Convention for September 15, 1787
The Online Library of Liberty: The Debates in the Several States Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (See pages 356-358)
States have same power as Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
Arizona and five other states are considering use of their power under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to initiate an amendments convention. With the federal debt exceeding $14 trillion, I believe nothing short of state-initiated constitutional reform will stop the impending fiscal train wreck.
Critics of an Article V amendments convention claim the states could unleash a runaway “constitutional convention” by exercising their Article V powers. But the states do not have authority under Article V to call a “constitutional convention.” Indeed, the words “constitutional convention” appear nowhere in the Constitution.
The power of the states to call an amendments convention is no greater than the power of Congress to propose amendments. Both amendment powers operate within the existing limitations of the Constitution. Any proposed constitutional amendment, whether arising from Congress or from an amendments convention, must still be ratified by 38 states.
Opposition to states using their Article V power boils down to a belief that Congress is more trustworthy than the states when it comes to proposing constitutional amendments. I disagree. Congress is driving our nation toward a financial cliff. The states must take the wheel.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders’ Plan
Goldwater Institute: 10 Facts to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention
RestoringFreedom.org: The National Debt Relief Amendment
Florida health care ruling focuses squarely on defending the Constitution
by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Florida was the second judge to determine that forcing every American to buy government-controlled health insurance violates the U.S Constitution. But he is the first to decide the entire law must fall because the individual insurance mandate can’t be separated from the other provisions.
Ruling Monday in a lawsuit brought by 26 states including Arizona, Judge Vinson found the law is about more than health care—it is “principally about our federalist system, and raises important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government.”
“Never before has Congress required everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States,” the judge declared, adding that it “would be a major departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.”
He quoted President Obama, who quipped during his 2008 campaign that “if a mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.”
Judge Vinson cited the Health Care Freedom Act, which the Goldwater Institute helped to draft and has been adopted by Arizona and five other states, as a reason for those states to have proper standing to challenge the individual mandate.
A federal judge in Virginia also found the insurance mandate to be unconstitutional, while two other courts have upheld it. The cases now go to different courts of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve the issue by next year.
Meanwhile, the Goldwater Institute’s legal challenge, which targets a number of vulnerabilities in the law, is proceeding in federal district court in Phoenix.
But we already can chalk one up for liberty in this titanic struggle pitting federal regulation versus state autonomy and individual freedom.
Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Coons v. Geithner
Goldwater Institute: Congress won’t rein in new federal agency with unconstitutional powers over health care
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson: Summary judgment in Florida v. Sebelius
Feds threaten to sue states over card check
by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
Sometimes politicians don’t recognize a tsunami even when it hits them.
Voters in four states—Arizona, Utah, South Dakota, and South Carolina—voted in the last election to amend their constitutions to protect the right to secret ballots in union organizing elections. The results were resounding, with approval rates ranging from 60 to 86 percent.
The measures were designed to forestall “card-check”—union-backed federal legislation that would eliminate the secret ballot in favor of a system under which unions could be formed merely by a majority of workers signing cards. Card-check would invite coercion in forming unions and reverse the decades-long trend against private-sector unionization.
The ballot measures upped the political ante for card-check legislation, and the Empire is striking back with a vengeance.
National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Eric G. Moskowitz wrote the attorneys general in all four states demanding that they decline to enforce the secret ballot protections, or NLRB will sue them. So far the attorneys general are united in their response: bring it on.
This litigation will mark a battle royale over federalism. NLRB will argue that federal law preempts the state measures. States will respond that they have the power to protect rights recognized under both the federal and state constitutions. The outcome, sure to be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court, will say much about the extent of federal power.
The Goldwater Institute drafted Save Our Secret Ballot and will help defend the measures at every turn. In the meantime, the Obama Administration has revealed for all to see where it comes down on a key issue of basic fairness: on the side of its union allies against the rights of American workers.
Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Voters in Five States Approve Ballot Measures to Protect Fundamental Freedoms
SOSBallot.org: Save Our Secret Ballot
Associated Press: Feds threaten to sue states over union laws
My New Year’s Resolution: A Dynamic Balance of Power
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
This year, I made just one New Year’s Resolution: to press for an Article V Amendment Convention.
Talk of a convention has brewed in political circles for years. But given the massive growth of the federal government in recent years, with spending nearly doubled from $2.1 trillion in 1995 to $4 trillion in 2010, an amendment convention cannot come too soon.
Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, 34 states can call for a convention to amend the Constitution. This would be an effective way for the states to stand up against federal power. An Article V amendment convention would give the states the opportunity to introduce amendments that would restore the original meaning of our Constitution and put the federal government back within its constitutional limits. Amendments proposed at a convention of the states can include ideas such as the National Debt Relief Amendment, which would require a majority of state legislatures to approve any increase in the federal debt. That would be a solid constraint on the main source of growth in federal government power—its ability to spend money. The National Debt Relief Amendment is policy neutral enough to have bipartisan appeal. I think it can pass in 34 states and get ratified in 38.
Therefore, I resolve to do everything I can to help states embrace their Article V powers, call for a convention, and pass the National Debt Relief Amendment.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: 10 Facts to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention
Goldwater Institute: Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Complete View of the Founders’ Plan
RestoringFreedom.org: Help us to solve our federal debt crisis
The Great Constitutional Divide – or what is Glenn Beck upset about?
This is dedicated to Nancy Huzar and to all those readers who, while waking up to the Tea Party Experience, now find themselves in an unfamiliar landscape with career politicians all claiming to be “Common Sense Conservatives”.
As we begin the second decade of the 21st Century in the United States, perhaps we should reflect on the crossroads that loom before us. Should we proceed along the path to a Old World European Socialist Democratic form of governance? Or perhaps we should continue the moderate centrist Constitutional Republic form of governance bequeathed to us by the Founders of our country?
Today, the Progressive Left would have you believe that they are America’s center, that they represent a centrist value position of the majority of Americans… all 300+ million of us. But do they?
Perhaps the United States is fundamentally a centrist country holding moderate values that allow for tolerance of the extremes. Perhaps this recent election is a statement by that once silent majority that they reject the progressive socialist agenda that the current administration is pursuing seemingly at all costs.
Consider this: It was rugged individualists who believed that redemption was an individual matter between themselves and Nature’s God founded America. Contrast that with the individual who now resides in the White House. It is his core belief, and that of those around him, that redemption collective. It is in the group, not the individual where one finds redemption. How alien is that to what our Founders believed? What’s worse, there is an entire cadre of adherents in academia working 24/7 to re-write history to suit their worldview.
People’s view of the proper role of government is a continuum stretching from the extreme Left (Totalitarian Communism) to the extreme Right (Totalitarian Fascism). Most Americans hold Moderate Values and fall as “Centrists” on this scale.
The current administration in Washington, and those of its allies on college and university campuses, tend to fall much further to the left of center than do most Americans. This is one reason that voting districts in large urban areas and around major universities tend to be “Blue” on the election maps while large tracts of suburban and rural America vote “Red”. The election of 2010 drove this contrast to the forefront of the county’s awareness. It would be a strategic mistake for the statist members of the Republican Party if they didn’t pay close attention to the message of 2010.
America is becoming polarized, pulled to the left of the Constitutional Divide by an increasingly aggressive Socialist minority with their vision of a Collective utopia. It is any wonder that today; the majority of Americans have such poor esteem for their members of Congress? Is it any wonder that today, a majority of American’s sense something is terribly wrong? It is exactly this awakening that drives talk radio and edutainment shows like Glenn Beck. Americans know that the “Hope & Change” they were promised isn’t consistent with America’s core centrist moderate values.
Take this simple test. Remember, each is a sliding scale from Left to Right. Ask yourself; “What do I believe? Do I believe in individualism or collectivism? Which describes my thoughts best?”
Well, there it is, the Great Constitutional Divide[1]. Given that most Americans describe themselves as being “in the center” you may correctly conclude that the column on the right most accurately describes most Americans and, the column on the right is pretty much the center for the United States. The stress many are feeling is that of a minority within the government, the major media and in our colleges and universities who are tugging us unwillingly into their Brave New World.
While this has been evolving since the early 20th Century, we may thank Barak Hussain Obama for forcing the issue and for waking up the great silent majority. Just remember, you are the center and they are the extreme.

[1] With many thanks to Alan Korwin for providing most of the contrasting text within the two boxes. Be sure to visit him at www.gunlaws.com
Arizona Lawmakers Have 100 Things to be Thankful For
PHOENIX – As members of Arizona’s 50th Legislature prepare for their first session in January 2011, the Goldwater Institute offers an abundance of recommendations to save money, improve education and advance freedom in our state with 100 Ideas for 100 Days.
“The answer to the riddle of Arizona’s budget deficit is getting government to focus on core functions,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.
All year long, Goldwater Institute policy analysts identify and research practical solutions to problems facing Arizona. 100 Ideas for 100 Days brings these solutions together in one publication that lawmakers can keep at their desks and refer to often. The public can gauge the Legislature’s success next year by watching to see how many of these 100 Ideas become law.
Topics in 100 Ideas for 100 Days are organized by the traditional names of legislative committees. Ideas that would help to reduce excessive spending are noted with a Money $aver sign. Every suggestion in 100 Ideas can be enacted independently of the others.
The ideas mentioned include:
• No. 13. Create a system of state contributions to Education Savings Accounts for special needs and foster care students.
• No. 35. Pass a resolution calling on Congress to convene a convention for proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require approval from a majority of the states to increase the federal debt.
• No. 44. Ask voters to approve a state constitutional amendment giving the Treasurer authority to certify budgets as balanced.
Each of the 100 ideas provides a link to more information about the idea or contact information for a Goldwater Institute analyst who can provide additional details.
The Goldwater Institute has been publishing 100 Ideas for 100 Days each year since 2006. Dozens of past ideas have been introduced as bills and signed into law, including suggestions to make government more transparent, to expand school choice options, and to protect private property.
Click here to read 100 Ideas for 100 Days. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog that develops innovative, principled solutions to issues facing the states and whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.





