Most of the Tenth Amendment Center‘s efforts since its founding have been focused on opposing the federal government’s usurpation of state, local and individual powers. There are certainly plenty of actions on the part of the federal government in the past century that could fall under that category, with both major parties sharing culpability. Unconstitutional wars, the war on drugs, massive government expansion into health care, education, agriculture…the list could go on and on. However, another threat to local, state and even national sovereignty comes from the international community, specifically the United Nations.

Coming out of the 1992 Rio Summit, Agenda 21 seeks to increase the UN’s power over areas of life ranging from farming practices to housing, all under the guise of environmentally sustainable development. What Agenda 21 really amounts to is a threat to private property rights, free markets and local self-government. Ironically, many towns have been gradually implementing Agenda 21 at the local level through ICLEI, which is an organization of local governments for sustainability. Like many power grabs, it is presented as being for the good of the people, but if one looks at the results of centralization of power at the national level, much less the international level, it is difficult to believe their rhetoric about saving the earth will yield any environmental benefit.

Even the establishment in the Republican Party recently came out with a resolution condemning Agenda 21. Like most good things in American life, however, this did not come about through a massive top-down effort from the Republicans in Congress. It was due to pressure from grassroots organizations, a pressure which has begun to have an effect at the state level.

The social networking sites are abuzz with bits on the push back against Agenda 21 from the bottom up. The Facebook page for Tea Party of Middlesex County, NJ (h/t Beth Kercado) recently shared a link regarding a bill introduced in the New Hampshire House. HB 1634 would ban participation, funding of, or receiving grants from ICLEI within the State of New Hampshire. The bill is currently in committee in the House. While this bill still has a long way to go before final passage, it should be noted that even when certain state sovereignty legislation fails to pass in New Hampshire, other states often take up similar issues in their legislatures, as happened in 2009 with the massive push for Tenth Amendment Resolutions across the country.

While no bill of this type exists in New Jersey, there was a time when no such bill existed in New Hampshire either. Our legislators need to hear from us, and the message must be clear. The agenda of the UN is one of control. Ours needs to be freedom and property rights.

Two pieces of legislation have been reintroduced in the 2012-3 legislative session of the New Jersey State Senate, and they need your support if they are to have more success than they did in the previous session. Both deal with the Transportation Security Administration’s intrusive procedures adopted at airports in the past year.

The first, SR12 (SR91 in the previous session), is a non-binding resolution urging the TSA to terminate its recent changes to its pat-down procedures and has bipartisan support. The Primary Sponsor is Michael J. Doherty (R-23). Co-sponsors are:

Diane B. Allen (R-7)

Richard J. Codey (D-27)

Steven V. Oroho (R-24)

Jeff Van Drew (D-1)

The previous legislative session had a similar resolution in the General Assembly (AR127), but so far there is no record of a companion bill. It is important to get this resolution reintroduced in this year’s session as well, so contact your Assemblymen/women to get things in motion there.

The second, S277 (S2509 in the previous session), specifies that certain images generated by body scans violate State statutes prohibiting invasion of privacy, pornography and endangerment of child welfare under certain circumstances. A federal, state or local agent found in violation of this bill if it becomes a law would not be considered immune from civil or criminal liability resulting from the creation of such an image. If found guilty, such an agent would be subject to fines, punitive damages and other “equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.” Senators Doherty and Allen are the Primary Sponsors, and Senator Van Drew is once again a Co-sponsor. So far, no companion bill is in the Assembly, nor was there one in the previous legislative session.

If your State Senators are Sponsors or Co-sponsors of this legislation, please be sure to thank them. If not, contact them and firmly, but politely, urge them to Co-sponsor SR12 and S277. Our freedom of movement is at stake.

To find your State Legislators’ contact information, go to the New Jersey Legislature’s site and click on “Contact Us” on the menu at the top of the screen. You will be directed to select your Municipality, which will direct you to your officials’ contact information in the Assembly and Senate.

Benton McMillin? What, you never heard of Benton McMillin? Well, in order to find out who he is, lets start with some recent catch phrases and work our way back. I’m sure we have all heard the battle cry of our progressive leaders in Congress and the White House of “spreading the wealth” and the “wealthy among us should pay their fair share”. After all, it is only fair that “wealthy” people step up and do their patriotic duty by paying more taxes, putting more money and control into the hands of the federal agencies and letting Washington, DC determine how to spend our money. They know what’s best for us, right?  But these rallying cries are far from new and have been used before-used to implement that dreaded amendment, the 16th:  “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census of enumeration”.   Yes, a direct attack on the sovereignty of the several States, making them beholden to an ever expanding and powerful Federal Government.

To understand this amendment and its attack on the States, we must go back to Article I, Section 8 – The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excise shall be uniform throughout the United States

This provision, however, works in conjunction with Section 9:  “No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken” and also the 5th Amendment:  ”nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.

So there you have it – Section 9 and the 5th Amendment were to severely limit the power to tax income directly since it required a census in each State and apportion the tax in each State by its population.  This came from the framers belief that services rendered by the government would come from the States.  The Federal Government would provide the expenses of Congress and the President, the cost of operating and maintaining the armed forces, operating the postal service, support international relations and the activities with regard to interstate commerce.

This worked out very well for the the first 125 years of our nation. The total expenditures from 1789 through 1913 were as follows:

Federal Government……………..$735,000,000
State and local government…….$1,602,000,000

However, during the War between the States, the seeds of the income tax were planted. Of course war was the culprit, and in order to pay for it, a tax of 5 to 7% was levied on incomes of $5,000 and up (a large sum of money at the time). This tax was dropped in 1873 and did not surface again until the 1890s. The country suffered from what was coined “a lack of money”. Which brings us to the villian of the article, Congressman Benton McMillin of Tennessee, who introduced in the House an income tax bill imposing a tax of 2% on incomes of $4,000 or greater. This was a tax not on the working man, but those filthy rich folks. It had a powerful appeal, this “soaking the rich” and as one Southern congressman put it “We are all for it down in our part of the country because none of us has $4,000 in income and somebody else will have to pay.” The bill passed congress but was actually defeated by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. Which begs the question “if it was unconstitutional then, why is it constitutional now?” Yes, the 16th went through the amendment process, but isn’t it in direct violation of Article 9 and the 5th Amendment?

Although defeated, the income tax rose again under President Taft who fostered the notion the funds could be used in a “period of national need”. So on February 25, 1913, the 16th Amendment was sadly added to the Constitution. A perfect device for “soaking the rich”. When put into law, lower incomes (less than $5,000) were not taxed, but this all changed to pay for WWI (what else but a war). Incomes of $2,000 were taxed 3%, while the highest tax rates soared to nearly 65% and we never looked back.

So, an amendment which passed to finance the nation during a “period of great need” (in other words to support the welfare/warfare state) has essentially stripped the States of all its power and finances to support itself as the framers intended. But the “rich” were suppose to finance this right?  However, the “rich” seem to be making less and includes more of us.   And we have Congressman Benton McMillin to thank for that.