Tenth Amendment Summit

Candidates from across the country are being invited to the Atlanta Airport Hilton on February 25-26 for a Tenth Amendment Summit, sponsored by Ray McBerry and co-sponsored by the Tenth Amendment Center.

Thursday (2/25) will be closed to candidates participating in the event. Friday (2/26) will be open to the public that will included speeches from some of the candidate in attendence and Ray McBerry (candidate for Governor of Georgia), Roy Moore (former judge and candidate for Governor of Alabama) and Andrew Napolitano (former judge, current Fox News legal analyst and host of Freedom Watch).

Tickets are available for $50. You can purchase them here.

127 comments

  1. anewday says:

    If Ray McBerry hasn’t even filed a campaign disclosure yet, how can he afford to sponsor an event of this magnitude?

  2. Red Phillips says:

    Congratulation to Ray for bringing in some real heavy hitters like Judge Moore and Judge Napolitano. Sounds like an excellent opportunity to discuss the forgotten and ignored Tenth Amendment.

    • Ken in Eastman says:

      Come on folks, we have devolved to second grade name-calling and accomplishing nothing more than looking foolish.

      You disagree on something. No one – not even Paris Hilton would be surprised – if she could read. I’m pretty sure you all figured that part out.

              • ByteMe says:

                And Chris moved my earlier comments into moderation for some reason that would have made exactly what I thought about this topic very clear, so my response is being muzzled at this time.

                • IW says:

                  Yeah, I’m still wondering why “some” of my initial comments were “moderated” as off topic, yet my later ones, which I agreed were slightly off topic 🙂 weren’t…

              • Red Phillips says:

                I don’t get your point? The first ten Amendments were promised to be added as a way to satisfy anti-Federalist objections and guarantee ratification of the Constitution.

                • Mad Dog says:

                  Red,

                  Get it together man. No one promised ten amendments to anyone. 15 were proposed.

                  And if anyone bought that pig in the poke… ie I’ll give you my vote now and later you get 2/3 of the States to ratify 10 Amendments of my choosing…

                  • Red Phillips says:

                    MD, stop playing games. You get my factually true historical point. The anti-Federalist wanted a Bill of Rights and it was promised to them in exchange for ratification. The Constitution would have likely not been ratified without it.

                    • Mad Dog says:

                      Hey Red,

                      A factually true historical point? So there weren’t 15 amendments offered up and only 12 sent to the States for ratification?

                      The Anti-Federalists were poorly organized if organized at all. Unlike the 85 Federalist Papers, no one agrees which of the so-called anti-Federalists papers were written by who or in what order.

                      Ratification was much more an accomplishment of a well organized effort, nearly violent, by the Federalists than it was a negotiated deal by a group of power brokers with no name.

                      I like Madison’s point of view on a ‘bill of rights.’

                      http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field([email protected](dg025311))

                      “As far as thesemay consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others.”

                      And Madison gets called the Father of the bill of rights. BTW, I do not capitalize bill of rights since there is no formally named document. It is merely a convention added later to call the first ten ratified amendments a ‘Bill of Rights.’ Note that Madison does not capitalize it either.

                      🙂

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      Mad Dog, thanks for making my point and the point McBerry and the rest of us constitutionalists are making. The Federalist who opposed a bill of rights opposed it because they said it was not necessary because it was not necessary to bind the government from doing what it was not specifically authorized to do. So for example, no reason to enshrine freedom of the press when there was not specific power to suppress the press. We rest our case that the government should be limited only to its specifically enumerated powers.

                      In hindsight all you have to do is look around you and survey the massive out of control Leviathan that we currently have to know that the anti-Federalist were actually much closer to right. Everything they feared has come to be.

                    • Ken in Eastman says:

                      Red,

                      I do agree with part of what you have argued. I also note that judicial precedent is a fact. Often, court precedents have led us in a direction that I believe the Constitutional delegates never envisioned this country moving.

                      Still, we are where we are with those precedents now a part of our history and actions have been taken based upon those decisions, however poorly written.

                      It is not within our power to undo the past and changes must be made with an understanding of our current situation. I am concerned that some of those offered solutions will cause more grief and do little to relieve our current plight.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      Well Ken, as a good Burkeans I don’t want to abolish the 80-90% of the Fed Gov that is not constitutionally authorized overnight. Some programs, such as the NEA, could be abolished immediately but most programs should be phased out as we make our way back to true constitutional government. And obviously we shouldn’t add any new unconstitutional programs like health care in the meantime.

                      But I respect that yours is a good honest opinion, and not “run, run, run away, there be extremists” hysteria.

                    • Ken in Eastman says:

                      Hi Red.

                      Thanks for the reply. I learned a long time ago that I’m not always right and that it helps to listen to other people especially if we disagree. Truth be told, I agree with many of your positions and am saddened by our slow devolution from a federalist to a national government.

                      Maybe more light and less heat helps a discussion along some. People should realize that states’ rights is not a code word for racism, but an overt reference to the 10th amendment and the protection of federalism. I don’t necessarily believe that those people are intentionally wrong, but it’s easier to lampoon a subject that to confront it honestly.

                    • Mad Dog says:

                      Poor Red,

                      Had to agree with me to avoid reality.

                      There was NO DEAL BETWEEN FEDERALISTS AND ANTI-FEDERALISTS THAT ‘ALLOWED’ THE CONSTITUTION TO BE RATIFIED IN EXCHANGE FOR A BILL OF RIGHTS.

                      And there’s no document legally named the Bill of Rights. Just a convention added later.

                      And the point of Madison is very clear. Neither a Constitution nor your Bill of Rights matters if it is contrary to the needs of the nation.

                      That is the point of court decisions. And mine.

    • IW says:

      Ken,

      I agree… I wasn’t just throwing out a “name” at Drift. My point was that his comments were probably made because either 1) he doesn’t truly understand Roy Moore’s positions (and how closely in fact they line up with our founders principles) Or 2) he truly understands them, but yet rejects those principles, which I would categorize as ignorant – seeing that those principles are what got us all here to begin with. 😉

      • benevolus says:

        “Our Founders principles”?

        As if they were all of one mind.

        Perhaps the federalists didn’t really exist. They were made up by Fidel Castro to confuse us.

      • griftdrift says:

        What did I miss? Oh, I am very familiar with Judge Roy Moore. And I do reject his interpretations. So I guess you could classify me as ignorant.

        But at least I understand the Constitutional prohibition against religious tests for holding office. Something Roy Moore, a former judge, doesn’t. Judge accordingly.

        • Red Phillips says:

          Moore did not argue that there are religious tests when there aren’t. He argued that the Muslim in question couldn’t take his Oath of Office in good faith. That is a different issue.

        • IW says:

          Grift,

          That’s the problem, I don’t believe you do understand the original Constitutional “prohibition against religious tests for holding office”. Our whole system of government is based upon the Judeo-Christian belief system… which is one reason that office holders swear to uphold their duties with their right hand upon a Bible. So I believe one of Judge Moore’s points was – how can a Muslim hold office and swear by the Bible if he believes in a system totally opposite to our system that is contrary to the Bible he is swearing upon?

          The original intent of the prohibition was to prevent one denomination (Christian) from dominating another (as had happened in England with the Anglican church). They did not want a litmus test saying that you had to be a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc… but I believe there was, and is, an underlying litmus test within our Constitution that assumes a belief in the Christian God, not Islam/Allah, Buddha, etc…

          I’m fine with you rejecting his/those interpretations of the Constitution if you like – but just understand that without changing the original foundation of our government – you can’t reject that interpretation without it being ignorant (whether intentionally or unintentionally) of the original founding documents and intent of the founding fathers.

    • Ken in Eastman says:

      IW,

      Some terms though are pretty perjorative. We do have some pretty bright people on here and I’m not sure it helps when we use certain words. I’m guilty of it sometimes, too, but it never changes anyone’s mind.

    • IW says:

      Ken,

      I never intended to call into question anyones intelligence – sorry if it came across that way. I agree that there are some very bright folks on PP. However, I don’t believe that being ignorant of something is necessarily a bad thing. We’re all ignorant about some things… myself probably more so than most others :). So if I’m ignorant of something I just need to learn more about it – it’s not that I’m not as intellectually capable as the next guy – I just don’t happen know a particular subject.

      Anyways… enough of my sidetracked discussion 🙂

  3. StephenLocustGrove says:

    I’m sure if an establishment candidate like Karen Handel could host something this big, most of you would be talking about what a BIG deal it is!!

      • griftdrift says:

        Yep. Heckuva Constitutional scholar. Knowledge so vast that he once said Muslim’s should be barred from taking federal office. I shudder at his brilliance.

          • Doug Deal says:

            It would help if you and your candidate would break with racists organizations acting under the cover of “preserving souther heritage”. If the white gowned goons of years past and the history of racism is what you are looking to preserve, then you are the one destroying souther culture.

            For those who do not know what I am talking about, check out the League of the South, who their Georgia leader is and look back at Red’s defense of them.

          • Red Phillips says:

            I have no trouble defending the League of the South of which I am a proud member or the concepts of states rights, nullification, interposition, and secession. You obviously have trouble defending your position because you have yet to do so. Making snide allegations of racism is not an argument unless you belong to the SPLC. Making the historical case that the above four things were not intended to be allowed by the Founding Fathers would be an argument. Have at it.

          • Doug Deal says:

            What has been left undefended from my side? You are the one backing a candidate who has yet to follow Georgia Law and report his campaign financing. I guess you guys only support the “Constitution” (in quotes because that is what they call it, but it apparently isn’t the one we know to be) not the laws that flow from its authority.

          • Red Phillips says:

            Doug, you have not defended historically (using quotes from the Founders, transcripts from the Convention, etc.) your position that nullification, interposition, and secession are not legitimate options. All you have done is equated them with racism when no one anywhere has said word one about race. Again, have at it.

            You might be interested to know that Tom Woods announced at the Campaign for Liberty Convention this weekend that his next book (due out this Summer) is going to defend nullification. Should be good reading.

  4. anewday says:

    So let me get this right….The man has not filled a campaign disclosure for the last period yet he is “sponsoring” a fairly large rally with fairly big speakers who probably demand a high sum to come speak, and no one is questioning him on it? Just the fact that he hasn’t even turned in a campaign disclosure is questionable enough for me. It’s one thing to be a state’s rights advocate, but when you don’t follow the laws that the state has set forth I begin to doubt your sincerity.

  5. griftdrift says:

    Apparently so, Red, as he seems to have completely forgotten Article 6:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    And Moore also said, in addition to Muslims being unable to take the oath in good faith (more about that in a second),

    “common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine”

    Now about the muslims not being able to take the oath in good faith. Why would that be? It’s because Roy Moore has said that the government derives it’s power not just from God but explicitly the Christian God.

    Just because it ain’t on paper doesn’t mean it’s not a test.

    • Red Phillips says:

      Grift, there is no God other than the Christian God.

      I think his point was that Islam in addition to being a religious system is a political system. And a political system that is contrary to the Constitution. This is arguably correct about some forms of Islam, although I don’t really agree with Moore’s verdict. This is a bit of a slippery slope, as you could also argue that some illiberal interpretations of Christianity are incompatible with our Constitution as well, although I really don’t want to get into that, because it is a very complicated theological discussion.

      You could also argue that everyone who takes the Oath of Office these days has no intention of actually following the Constitution as intended, with the honorable exception of Ron Paul. Does Bernie Sanders swear his Oath in good faith? Not really. So that would leave us with a bit of a conundrum.

        • Red Phillips says:

          I never said I agree with everything Roy Moore says. Just that his understanding of the original intent of the Constitution is very sound. The First Amendment was not originally intended to apply to the States so the Feds were out of line in ordering him to remove the Ten Commandments. An Alabama judge could not violate an Amendment that begins “Congress shall make no law” if he deliberately set out to try. And the First Amendment and the prohibition against religious tests were not entirely liberal in their intent. They were also meant to keep the peace among the various States where different denominations predominated and that had different State Established Churches. Southerners, for example, fear the dominance of New England Puritanism.

          • Red Phillips says:

            “Congress can only make laws that apply to itself?”

            Huh? The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…” therefore only Congress can violate the First Amendment. The Amendment was intended to restrict the Federal Congress, not the States. This was well understood at the time it was ratified. For example, most States at the time had established churches and many (most?) had religious tests for State offices. The Amendment did not disestablish these. They persisted for long after the Amendment was ratified.

          • benevolus says:

            Oh OK. I see. But it seems that much of the Bill of Rights has been [i]incorporated[/i], meaning that they do apply to the states. If I am not mistaken, it looks like it applies in cases where the federal government is establishing individual rights, such as equal protection. States can’t take those rights away.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Red, like many McBerry followers like to forget about that war thingy we had around 1860-1865, and it’s aftermath.

            Still partying like it’s 1859.

          • drjay says:

            i think it’s safe to say that that crowd very much remembers the war of northern aggression, i imagine a lot of them think about it every day…

          • Red Phillips says:

            Ben and this is also in reply to grift, yes I do consider the 14th Amendment invalid because it was passed under durress. A contract signed at the point of a gun is not valid is it? But even if you grant the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment, the “incorporation doctrine” was not the original intent. It was a legal doctrine that was invented later. Read the wiki article. “Incorporation” didn’t come about until the 1890s.

            Doug, pardon me for actually believing in and taking seriously the idea of original intent which most modern conservatives only pretend to uphold.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Red,

            I take the Constitution very seriously as I am a firm believer in the rule of law. The problem is that you folks take the parts you like and mix in a bunch on nonsense and completely fail to realize that there is a whole other world out there beyond your front porch stoop.

            First, original intent included the concept of there being a court system to hold judicial power. I know you guys like to gloss over this, but the concept of judicial review is firmly grounded in US history and was understood to be one of the very definitions of judicial power. Alexander Hamilton argued such in one of the Federalist papers.

            Accepting the final judegement of the judiciary on matters Constitutional IS following the Constitution. Picking and choosing what you want to support is not.

            Besides, that organization that you belong to, that I don’t believe I have to name, believes in severing itself from the Union and in effect throwing out the Constitution. It is laughable for you and your fellow McBerry supporters to claim that you care one lick about the USA, the Constitution or anyone not in your tiny club.

          • benevolus says:

            OK, I think I get it now.
            Even if the Constitution were to grant rights to individual citizens, the states could overrule them. That would allow things like, oh, let’s say… slavery. For example.

          • Red Phillips says:

            “That would allow things like, oh, let’s say… slavery. For example.”

            Real cute ben. Why is it that opponents of states’ rights always go immediately to the PC card. They don’t even bother to make a preliminary argument and then resort to snide PC innuendo only when they are losing the debate. They just go straight to the PC card. It is testimony that the intellectual and historical case for your anti-states’ rights position is pathetically weak. Now ben, try to make a counter argument if you can.

          • Icarus says:

            I’m sorry. I don’t usually wade into these, but Red…are you seriously saying outlawing the owning of another person is just political correctness running amok?

          • Red Phillips says:

            “I know you guys like to gloss over this, but the concept of judicial review is firmly grounded in US history and was understood to be one of the very definitions of judicial power. Alexander Hamilton argued such in one of the Federalist papers.”

            I don’t necessarily disagree with that. People that I respect are on both sides of that issue. Kevin Gutzman who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution argues in favor of judicial review. Certainly nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Court from deciding on the constitutionality of an issue.

            “Accepting the final judgment of the judiciary on matters Constitutional IS following the Constitution. Picking and choosing what you want to support is not.”

            This however, is where you are very wrong. Nowhere does the Constitution say the Supreme Court is the final judge on the constitutionality of an issue. The Founders actually envisioned a rather limited role for the Court. It was the Court of first resort for disputes among the States, for example. But it did not set it up as sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. The President has every right to determine if a measure is unconstitutional and veto it. A state has every right to determine a measure is unconstitutional and nullify it. Etc. Ever heard of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions?

          • Red Phillips says:

            Icarus, slavery has nothing to do with nothing. No one wants to reinstitute slavery. To bring it up regarding a discussion of states rights is just an attempt to thought stop. To end debate without actually addressing the issues.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            Gee, I really don’t want to be drug into this, but here I am.

            If nullification is an accepted part of the Constitution, then Article VI doesn’t disallow it. See the Virginia Resolution, Kemtucky resolution and the addendum to the Kentucky resolution (1799). Jefferson, who knows a little about the intent of the Founding Fathers thought nullification was OK. Also in the Nullification Controversy of 1832, involving South Carolina, nullification was disliked by Andrew Jackson and he threatened to send troops, but he did not outright deny the right to nullify.

            Oh and remember that several northern states have threatened to use states’ rights multiple times, including the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

            The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution apply to the federal government. The purpose was to establish a federal government created by the individual states. Part of that legal work was to protect the rights of individuals and states from the federal government.

            The War Between the States did not change the US Constitution. There were amendments; however, after the war that did.

            As for Judge Moore and Islam, religion is not a Constitutional reason for excluding anyone from public office. It never has been and should never be.

            And for the record, I do not belong to any seditious organizations. I do not even belong to the SCV though I do qualify several times over and am proud of that.

          • Red Phillips says:

            Careful Ken, you are using history and that is not allowed (well except to drag up slavery at any mention of states rights and the Founders). What you are supposed to do is throw up your hands and act outraged that anyone would dare suggest such a thing as following the intent of the Founders in this day and age. It so much easier than formulating a coherent argument.

          • benevolus says:

            “A contract signed at the point of a gun is not valid is it?”

            OK, so you guys want to give this land back to the Cherokee then?

          • Doug Deal says:

            The Civil War did not change the Constitution, but the three amendments that came right after it certainly did.

            I am stridently pro-states rights, but the Southerners of the time (who happen to be my ancestors) were wrong in banking the concept on something so entirely immoral, the perpetualization of slavery.

            Slavery should have never been allowed in this country to begin with and the fact that it is should clue you into the fact that the Constitution is not perfect. It is simply the best we’ve got.

            The reason that I am so hard on people like McBerry is that this type of glorification of the Civil War is ridiculous and glosses over the fact that pretty much every Southerner who voted for secession knew, it was to keep their slaves in bondage. Lip service to other issues is included, but pretty much every written speech or letter has the slavery issue as it’s main theme.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            Doug,

            Slavery was (and is, because it is still ongoing in parts of the world) a vile, reprehensible institution that dehumanized all of its participants: the willing as well as the unwilling. (I-am-not-a-neanderthal disclaimer done.)

            Having said that, states’ rights is a real issue just as it was beforehand. There were also real economic issues at hand. The southern states were

            The Nullification Controversy of 1832, during which South Carolina threatened Secession unless it was allowed to nullify certain federal tariffs that stifled its economy, was not about slavery. The tariff system had the southern states in the position of colonies, preventing the sale of raw goods on the world market or the importation of finished goods from overseas.

            Southerners were thereby forced to buy finished goods from the only industrialized part of the nation, New England, at above world market prices. They were not allowed to sell raw materials on the world market, but instead forced to sell at below market prices to the more industrialized north.

            Massachusetts and Connecticut refused requests for manpower for the federal government during the War of 1812 based on states’ rights.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Yeah, give me the dates of the seccession caused by those incidents and the result of the wars that followed. Oh yeah, that’s right, only protecting slavery was enough of an issue to fight over.

            The only problem with bringing up that seccession was mentioned by other states at other points in history is that no state actually did it until 1860, and it was the desire to keep and hold slaves that did it.

  6. griftdrift says:

    What about the 14th? Or do we not count that one because of the “unpleasantness”.

    And although, I loathe to go done this rabbit hole, the religious test clause was not an amendment. It is in Article VI. And Roy Moore was not commenting on a state office. He was referencing the seating of the first Muslim Congressman.

  7. griftdrift says:

    “Our whole system of government is based upon the Judeo-Christian belief system… which is one reason that office holders swear to uphold their duties with their right hand upon a Bible”

    Please point to the section of the Constitution which denotes this. Particularly the requirement of placing the right hand on the Bible.

    • Mad Dog says:

      Loving the griftdrift. Hating the group, If it ain’t in the Constitution, it ain’t legal, etc.

      Where’s the part in the Constitution that specifically says, breath in and out?

    • Red Phillips says:

      grift, good constitutional interpretation is not wooden literalism. It is an effort to as best as possible determine the original intent of the Founders when they were writing it and what the States thought they were getting when they ratified it. It is not found in the most recent Supreme Court decision. It is found in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the State Ratifying Conventions, what was written about it at the time, etc.

      I would not go so far as to say that “our whole system of government is based upon the Judeo-Christian belief system.” You could make an argument that it was actually a liberal Enlightenment coup. Patrick Henry did. But you can say that the Founders took the Christian milieu in which the Constitution arose for granted. No one at the time, except maybe the most radical, envisioned a modern ACLU style entirely secular public square. Such thoughts had hardly even been thought at the time.

      • griftdrift says:

        Really? What about Thomas Paine? Author of the little pamphlet that was key to starting the whole she-bang? Was he an apostate?

        And once again, this time I’ll even be a little more lenient, please point to any place where God or even religion is mentioned in the Constitution other than the prohibition against it’s establishment and against religious tests.

        Tell me Red (by the way, love your 14th amendment argument), if this was all based on the “christian milieu” then why did the founders specifically exclude God and religion except in prohibitions against from the document that establishes how this nation is governed?

        • Red Phillips says:

          “Really? What about Thomas Paine? Author of the little pamphlet that was key to starting the whole she-bang? Was he an apostate?”

          Of course he was an apostate. (Is this even questioned?) His book “Age of Reason” was openly hostile to Christianity which pretty much made him persona non grata in the US.

          Also, I didn’t make the argument that the Constitution is an explicitly Christian document. I am probably closer to Patrick Henry in my opinion about that. The point is that the Founders could not possibly have envisioned modern ACLU style strict secularism because no one thought that way back then. It is a relatively modern idea. It has only approached mainstream within the last 50 to 75 years give or take

          “by the way, love your 14th amendment argument”

          Is there a part of it that you would like to factually dispute?

          • griftdrift says:

            Not until you answer me question.

            “if this was all based on the “christian milieu” then why did the founders specifically exclude God and religion except in prohibitions against from the document that establishes how this nation is governed?”

      • Mad Dog says:

        “….a modern ACLU style entirely secular public square.”

        Would that be contrasted with the public square of say 1776 which had a church in the very middle of the square instead of a courthouse?

    • IW says:

      “which is one reason”… I never said that placing your right hand on the Bible to swear was a Constitutional requirement… I was merely making the point that many of the things that we do all point back to the fact that our system was and is built on a Judeo-Christian belief system.

Comments are closed.