This is the first of two blog entries on the Tenth Amendment:

If you follow the news at all, you’ve probably heard accounts of state legislators, governors, members of Congress, Tea Party groups, and others call for a return to the principles of limited government.  Most recently, these fires have been stoked by the health care legislation currently making its way through Congress and the economic bail outs which were doled out to auto companies, banks, and insurance companies at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009.  The argument for limited government tends to be accompanied by the state sovereignty view of the U.S. Constitution.  In other words, the states are viewed as completely autonomous entities with the power to nullify federal legislation and decrees which are deemed outside the bounds of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.  To that end, the Tenth Amendment is cited which reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

These arguments spurred my thinking on the subject and compelled me to look deeper into the history of the Tenth Amendment.  I wanted to find out why is was adopted and what power, if any, it contains to truly ensure the federal government plays within its given sphere of influence.  Before I do that, however, I think a bit of a refresher on history is necessary.

After the United States won its freedom from Britian, the prevailing task at hand was to form a new government.  Rightfully wary of a strong national government, the sovereign states (think of each state as a nation unto itself at this point) entered into a pact called the Articles of Confederation.  This arrangement was similar to today’s European Union or the Confederate States of America from 1861-1865.  At that time, our founders didn’t identify themselves as Americans, but rather as Virginians, Georgians, etc.  For example, when Thomas Jefferson wrote letters to friends indicating his desire to return to “my country,” he was speaking of Virginia.  The Articles of Confederation contained very few enumerated powers.  In fact, the legislature had no power to tax, raise an army, or control interstate commerce.  The legislature could not pass laws, but instead were limited to resolutions which required 9 of 12 votes for passage.  With such stringent guidelines for action to occur, the U.S. was not able to effectively address numerous problems, not least of which was the substantial debt from the Revolutionary War.

Our brilliant founding father, James Madison, recognized the issue and realized that the U.S. would be dissolved just as quickly as it was formed if decisive action was not taken soon.  Perhaps his greatest feat, Madison convinced George Washington to come out of retirement and chair the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  Washington reluctantly agreed as he was not keen on the idea of risking his place in posterity for what could be perceived as a fool’s errand.  Had Washington not agreed to participate, it is highly likely that the convention would have never occurred.

Seeking to bolster their argument for a stronger national government, Madison and Hamilton wrote the bulk of what we know today as The Federalist Papers.  Not ignorant to the fact that many were quite disturbed by the idea of a bolstered national government, they sought to allay the fears.  Federalist 45 pointed out that the national government’s powers were “few and defined.”  It went on to note that the powers given to the states were essentially without limit.  In Federalist 46, Madison pointed out that the state and federal governments had such different purposes that it was difficult to conceive of the notion that they would encroach on each other’s territory.

After the Constitution was ratified by the States, those fearing excessive national power advocated for the Bill of Rights.  The Tenth Amendment was proposed in 1789 in the First Congress.  Based on arguments previously mentioned in Federalists 45 and 46, both Madison and Hamilton viewed the amendment as redundant.  Thomas Jefferson, however, had quite the opposite opinion.  He viewed the amendment as absolutely necessary in order to prevent the encroachment of federal power into the arena reserved specifically for the states.

During debate on the Amendment, a representative from South Carolina sought to change the wording to read, “The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution…”  On the surface, this distinction seemed inocuous, but Madison objected, noting that implied powers were necessary for the national government, otherwise the Constitution would become quite a burdensome document with every granted power spelled out in triplicate.  The issue died when no other representatives supported the change in wording.  The amendment ultimately was not contested by Madison or Hamilton because they did not view it as harmful to the new federal government’s mission or enumerated powers.  As we all know, the amendment was ratified by the states and became a permanent part of the Constitution.

That’s only the beginning of the story, though.  Stay tuned for Part 2.

No matter which side you are on, it’s pretty easy to see that the White
House’s message of transparency has been, somewhat, well, hard to
decipher. Matt Kibbe wrote about a few of the back door deals and the
behind the scenes nature of the health care debate.

Despite the transparency rhetoric, promises of an open conversation and a
ban on lobbyists in the White House, there have been murky-at-best
explanations for documented White House visitors. President Obama pledged
not to work with lobbyists. So, naturally, lobbyists just delist, and
voila! No more lobbyists in the White House. Which unfortunately, doesn’t
make them any less of a lobbyist… just a lot more illegal.

Lobbyists are nothing new. The issue is that for a campaign that ran so
vehemently on not working with lobbyists and special interests, they seem
to be more than happy to blur the lines when it benefits their cause. But
what makes a lobbyist a lobbyist?

The Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) defines a lobbyist as a person who spends
more than 20% of their time on “lobbying activities” and has had more
then one “lobbying contact”. Pretty simple. What constitutes a
“lobbying activity”? Time spent on lobbying contacts, as well as any
planning, prep time, research, coordination, and dirt digging. A
“lobbying contact” is any communication, oral or written, with federal
officials regarding policy modification, formulation and adoption. That
goes for legislation, government officials, government contracts, and
nominations subject to Senate consent.

Andy Stern, a known lobbyist who delisted in 2007, has taken his share of
heat. He appeared on the White House visitor log 22 times last year for
meetings with President Obama, Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel, and Peter Orzag.
News articles also report meetings with House members and Senators.

Apparently not the brightest bulb, Stern also reported his meetings on
Twitter. The Alliance for Worker Freedom and Americans for Tax Reform
collected tweets from February to June that mention White House meetings,
visits with Congressmen, and lobbying with Mayor Bloomberg.

Click here to view a clip from an interview with Stern.

“I don’t care if I went there once, or if I went there every single
day, they would say it’s too much. That’s because they have a different
vision of America than the people I work with every day.”

The assumed access to the White House is an incredible display of
arrogance. They never thought they would be denied access. This is what
happens when everything is negotiable and promises mean nothing. Washington
is doing what it wants, and the less we know the better.

Transparency redefined: We’ll actually show you nothing, and then say
that the reason nothing is working is because of the Republicans. Those
Republicans and their silly “Constitution” and “procedures”. That
is all that stands between you and utopia, people.

America knows tragedy, but for most of us, probably not to this extent.  Imagine today 20% of your Facebook friends died, were feared dead or injured by a disaster, natural or otherwise.  That’s the reality (or, at least, a poor attempt at capturing the reality) that the people of Haiti are grappling with as they wake up this morning as the AP estimates that up to 500,000 may be dead out of a country of 9.8 million.

American citizens have given more to the world than any nation in the history of civilization in terms of financial support, medical supplies, food and other goods and services.  The majority of the support comes from private citizens, religious assemblies and reputable non-profit organizations.  Nearly 66% of citizens donated to help the 9/11 relief efforts while 63% donated to help victims of the 2005 hurricanes, of which Katrina was most prominent.

Now America has the opportunity to step up once again and show that the reason our nation’s greatness is because our citizens care.  This is a real opportunity to “spread the wealth” to those who need the most.  I encourage patriots out there that if they have so already, to give to the relief efforts going on in Haiti.  The Red Cross always does a superb job in these circumstances.  If you’re looking for a faith-based charity, I would recommend Convoy of Hope.  Both organizations are on the ground working around-the-clock.

Please continue to pray for the victims of this horrible tragedy.

People will sometimes ask what I read. Here are some of the books I read in 2009, and would recommend.

1. Economics in One Lesson  by Henry Hazlitt. A really concise read on free market economics in layman terms. Couple hundred pages long, so not a heavy read.

2. The Essentials of Economics by Faustino Ballve. A little tougher read, though just over a hundred pages. But Ballve, a Spanish economist, has gems like this: “. . . the free market is the most obvious expression of the sovereignty of the people and the best guarantee of democracy. Individual guarantees stated in writing in the constitution are of no use to a nation if it is not the people, but a third party, whether government or trade-union, that fixes prices and wages . . . for in that case the people, in being deprived of their right to free choice in the market, i.e. their right to assign everything the rank and the value it suits them to give it, from being sovereign are reduced to the status of slaves.”

3. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes.  Shlaes does an excellent job of really taking another look at the history of the Depression, FDR’s policies, and some of the impacts, short term and long term, of those policies. Really good read. Little longer, but worth it.

4. The American Cause by Russell Kirk. Not a long book, but a must read for those wanting to better understand who we are as a nation, what the principles are that have made us great, and why they’re worth fighting for. 

More recommends tomorrow.

The Telegraph, a British newspaper, is running a series this week on the top 100 conservatives and liberals in America.  The paper ranks the individuals according to their accomplishments and present-day influence.  This is a follow-up article to their rankings in 2007.

The article defines conservatives and liberals in a more European style than many Americans would define them.  Conservatives are defined as “people identifiably – though not always self-described – as right of centre,” while liberals are “are those identifiably left of centre.”  The article also points out that the rankings are not based upon ideological purity, i.e. Jimmy Carter is not ranked above Jesse Jackson because the former President is more liberal.

The top 20 of each will be announced on Friday.  American Majority is asking if you did the rankings, who would be on your top five list of conservatives and liberals in America in terms of accomplishments and present-day influence?

There are a lot of groups out there these days trying to get off the ground purported doing the Lord’s work for the advancement of freedom. Not all of them make it. Some of them are questionable. I pray very hard these days for God to give me some sense of discernment between the groups worth standing on the bridge with and those not worth it.

I won’t always be right and sometimes will be had. That’s life.

But over the past year I have fallen in love with one new group that has yet to disappoint and that frequently excites me. It’s American Majority. Those of you who attended the RedState Gathering last August know them well. They helped sponsor the event and made a presentation.

Slowly and carefully, American Majority is raising up a new batch of conservative leaders at the local level. Their goal is not to find the next conservative for congress, but to find the next conservative for the school board, the town council, the county commission, etc. They intend to rebuild the conservative farm team.

And they do fine work. They are a solid group I’m pleased to promote and partner with whenever I can.

[UPDATE:] Cross posted at Redstate.com

So we’re launching a revamped site today. Looks pretty awesome (kudos to Austin, Doug, Jaoni, Allison, Michael the designer, et. al. on a job very well done). In 2009, American Majority took its work to the next level (or  I should say, multiple levels) conducting over 150 trainings in 26 states, with just under 5,000 people being trained to run for state and local office, or to become better candidates.

While those are solid numbers, we’re expecting more in 2010, but we’ll need your help to accomplish our goals. The great thing is, the new website has a lot of tools that will help you spread the word about AM, from our uniquely designed tools for activists found in the AM store, to our new social activism platform called the Patriotech Project, to making it easier for you to request an AM training in your community.

We’re making our resources easier to access, with our podcasts on Running for Office, Power to the People, the History of the Constitutional Convention, and other podcasts by AM staff.  We also plan on keeping the AM blog fresh and exciting, with multiple new posts every day from AM staff and guest bloggers.

People often ask me how they can be of help to AM. I tell them two things. First, as we are still relatively new, having just celebrated our second anniversary last week, help spread the word about AM, either thru word-of-mouth, or Facebook and Twitter. Second, AM can always use financial support, and with our secure donation page, it’s very easy to make a contribution that will help us train even more leaders and activists on how to be effective in implementing the great principles of free enterprise, limited government and individual freedom. So I hope you’ll help AM have a great year in 2010.  Enjoy the new site.

2010 promises to be a good year for conservative campaigns both in North Carolina and across the country. Whether you are running a campaign for town council or a statewide Senate campaign, Twitter can play an important role in helping you win.

I’ve compiled ten tips and observations to help conservative campaigns engage conservative voters in 2010. These important (and perhaps obvious) Twitter tips are based on what I’ve seen campaigns do and not do with their Twitter strategies in the past year.

Take a look, remember that followers are potential voters, and get tweeting!

1. Realize Successful Twitter Accounts Do Not Come Overnight.

Campaigns need to be prepared to invest in this new media tool. Twitter accounts, like all other aspects of your campaign, will require staff time and resources. Start by creating a long term Twitter strategy that focuses on reaching and educating your potential voters. As you continue, remember that successful Twitter accounts are not measured by the amount of followers you have, but the impact your message has on those you are trying to target.

2. Customize Your Twitter Account

Fill in any possible information on the Twitter Profile (name, website, and bio at minimum), including dates for primary or general elections. Create a custom background that corresponds to the branding on your website and Facebook Page or use the background space to list url information for your other social media accounts. There are multiple options for customization, but the point here is to create a Twitter profile that is engaging and informative.
3. Remember You Have a Twitter Account

This seems obvious, but I can’t tell you how many campaigns I have seen start accounts on social networks and then fail to follow through. Twitter should be your second new media priority (after Facebook), but if your campaign hasn’t developed a strategy for using Twitter, don’t launch an account yet. It does you no favors for potential voters to see a campaign Twitter account that hasn’t been updated in months. (Of course, if you are itching to start using Twitter and just can’t seem to come up with a strategy, let’s talk).

4. Know Who Is Tweeting

For most organizations, parties, groups, and online grassroots movements, I recommend keeping personal and business accounts completely separate. However, for campaigns it’s effective for candidates to show a personal side. The trick here is to make sure it’s clear who is tweeting. If campaign staff will tweet sometimes and the candidate others, create an easy way for followers to distinguish the tweets.

5. Hashtags. Use them.

Hashtags are my favorite part of Twitter because they allow you to reach new people and categorize your tweets.  I am continually amazed that there are candidates running for any office, especially Congress or Senate, who are still not using hashtags. Look around and find out which hashtags your potential followers are using and use them constantly. You could also create your own hashtag and feed it to your campaign website (warning: don’t forget that anyone can tweet anything with any hashtag). Either way, encourage your supporters to retweet or tweet about you using the hashtags your campaign is using.

6. Stop Expecting People to Come to You.

Many savvy political tweeters will seek out your Twitter account, but many, many more potential supporters will not. The best way to increase your base is to follow the people you hope will follow you. My tip for finding your followers is to pick influential tweeters in your district and follow the tweeters who are following them. You might even ask those same influential tweeters to recommend people for you to follow.

7. See Follower, Think Voter

When you see the word follower, think “potential voter” and engage tweeters in every way possible. For example, thank followers for retweeting important links and encourage them to do so in the future. Consider encouraging followers to ask questions and use the Twitter account to respond to those questions. However you go about engaging your followers, remember that followers are potential voters and you need them come Election Day.

8. Use Twitter Lists

Engage and recognize your supporters by grouping them in specific Twitter lists. Consider sending the people on these lists your press releases and links to your latest blogs first. It’s likely they will appreciate the recognition and start spreading your content. Twitter lists are an easy and quick way to see what your supporters are tweeting about.

9. Know What People Are Tweeting About Your Campaign

Don’t rely on Google alerts and the Twitter @ reply function (which is unreliable at best) for Twitter reputation management. It’s important to take time to use the Twitter search function to search for your name, district, your opponent’s name, and other relevant keywords. Follow the people who are supporting you and address any questions that have been raised by other Tweeters.

10.  Don’t Stop Tweeting Once You Win

Change your account name from @nameforcongress to @RepName and tweet more than ever. You will be glad you did when the next election cycle rolls around.

(Note: This blog has also been posted at majorityconnections.com and runsmart2win.com.  Comments or suggestions? Connect with me on Twitter @jessicanwood.)

I do not pretend to be a lawyer.  While many of my friends in undergrad chose to enter the legal arena, I chose the second least honorable field: politics.  If you think about it, law and politics are inseparably woven together.  Many lawyers become politicians and many politicians need lawyers.  I promise I’ll end the sarcasm here (maybe).

Among the myriad of legal issues in the United States today, there are few as politically charged as the subject of eminent domain.  In layman’s terms, eminent domain is the act of government seizing private property when efforts to purchase the property from the owner have failed.  There can be many reasons for eminent domain, usually for the purpose of public use (utilities, roads, national defense, “economic development,” etc.), often loosely defined.  This article gives a good overview of the process.

The issue of eminent domain made headlines in 2005 when the Supreme Court decided in the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London that it was acceptable for the city to seize private property (after negotiations to purchase the properties failed) for the purpose of selling that property to developers to redevelop an blighted (in the city’s eyes) part of town.

The case is particularly important to me because New London, CT is my hometown.  I remember as a teenager reading and watching the debates between private citizens and the unelected New London Development Corporation (a quasi-public entity who received the funds from the sale) and how the City of New London ignored the rights of property owners in favor of a dream of becoming “the next Baltimore.”  In case you were wondering, Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant who benefited the most from the eminent domain recently decided to vacate their New London complex after a merger with Wyeth.

This was not the only time New London ran after dollar signs.  In the mid 1990s, the New London Zoning Board told my parents who had founded a small Assemblies of God church in the downtown that they could not buy any property in the city because “there were enough churches in New London.”  Never mind that such a decision violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and probably the then recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).  The city was in desperate need of tax revenues for its pet projects and they despised the fact that churches were tax-exempt (as they should be).  Today the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 specifically protects churches against the abuses of activist zoning boards and where there is still abuse, organizations like The Beckett Fund, Alliance Defense Fund and American Center for Law and Justice continue to win case after case in favor of religious assemblies.

Despite 43 states passing laws attempting to limit the effects of Kelo, local governments seem emboldened by the Supreme Court case.  In a January 4 column, George Will in the Washington Post wrote an op-ed about ongoing abuses in New York.  In one case, developers are trying to define condos worth close to $600,000 as blighted in effort to pave the way for a multi-billion dollar development project (including a new home for the New Jersey Nets – do not get me started on taxpayer subsidies for private stadiums).  The New York Supreme Court sided with the developers in a 6-1 decision.

Will also talks about a Columbia University attempt to expand, but was resisted by local businesses that did not want to close their doors.  The university tried to have to properties seized by the city of Manhattan by defining the properties as blighted.  Thankfully a state court held in favor of the taxpayers in this one.

The abuse isn’t just limited to New York.

• In Washington, property owners are fighting against Sea Tac who wants their land as part of a light rail line.  The owners paid over $10 million for the property, but are being offered only $8.6 million.  Now the city wants to claim the land via eminent domain.
• In Florida, a man is charging the government with deliberately lowering the value of his property in order to offer less to homeowners when the government wanted to expand the size of Everglades National Park.
• In St. Louis, the city is letting private developers clear out traditional African-American communities in order to redevelop the part of the city in the developer’s vision.
• In Corona, California the city has extended their eminent domain authority by twelve years in a move that could affect businesses across the city.

What does this mean for ordinary citizens like us?  Politicians that do not respect the Constitution rule of law and natural rights are going to be more likely to abuse the practice of eminent domain, if they decide to use it at all.  Conservatives and libertarians can hash out if there is such thing as a need for eminent domain.  My purpose is not to solve that debate.  What is clear, however, is that eminent domain abuses are on the rise and it is an issue that every voter should consider when electing local officials.

The need is great for public officials that do err on the side of the people and not special interests or bloated bureaucracies.  The stakes are high when you consider the kind of authority local governments exercise when it comes to eminent domain, but they become all the more high when you consider that many of these abusers of the public trust become candidates for higher office.  The same attitudes in Congress today are reflected in many City Councils and Town and County Commissions: the politician knows best and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.  Thankfully neither is true, particularly the latter.  All it takes is a few voters that care and a few good candidates to run.